Ryan Report Volume II

Chapter 1
Institute of Charity: St Patricks, Upton, and St Josephs, Ferryhouse
Introduction
A history of the Rosminians and their involvement in industrial schools
1.01 The Institute of Charity was founded by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati in 1828 at Calvario in Italy. It received the approbation of the Holy See on 20th December 1838 and was given the status of a religious Order. It was a society that included religious members, who took the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, and also lay members who shared the special objectives of the Institute. Rosmini believed in a principle of passivity, based on the consciousness of humanitys nothingness, or its inability on its own to achieve lasting good. He had a conviction that Gods Providence guides by means of his Church and the needs of people. By remaining open, or having an attitude of indifference, as Rosmini put it, as to what work of charity was undertaken by them, the Rosminians, as they came to be known, were being guided by Divine Providence to doing lasting good for their neighbours. In 1835, Luigi Gentili founded a Novitiate in England and set up further missions across England and Wales in the two following decades. The Institute of Charity continued to grow and became an international organisation with four major provinces: the Italian province, which included the regions of India and Venezuela; the English province, which included New Zealand; the Irish province, which included the vice province of Africa; and the province of the United States. Until 1931, the Institute of Charity in Ireland came under the jurisdiction of the English province. In 1860, the Institute, which had experience of running a Reformatory School in North East Yorkshire, was invited to run the proposed new Reformatory School at Upton, County Cork, which became the first Rosminian Community established in Ireland. Upton Reformatory operated for 29 years and closed in 1889, to reopen five days later as Danesfort Industrial School, certified for the reception of 300 boys. In 1884, the Rosminian Institute took charge of a second establishment, the Clonmel Industrial School for Roman Catholic Boys, which received a certificate to receive 150 boys the following year. Count Arthur Moore, the MP for Clonmel, had approached them to manage and run the school that he had built for orphaned and abandoned children at the cost of 10,000, a considerable sum in those days. It was situated about four kilometres east of the town of Clonmel, in the townland of Ferryhouse, on the northern bank of the River Suir. The 3.6 hectares of land it was built on was soon expanded to 16 hectares, and ultimately to 32 or more hectares of farmland. In 1901, the Institute of Charity acquired Ballyoonan House, Omeath, situated on 14 acres of land, to serve as its Novitiate. It was given the name of St Michaels, becoming a Scholasticate in 1935, until 1945, when it again became a Juniorate for 28 students. In 1931, a new Novitiate was established in Kilmurry House, Kilworth, County Cork. In 1954, St Michaels applied to be CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 1
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
recognised as a secondary school, taking in students who did not necessarily want to become members of the Institute of Charity. 1.06 The Rosminians operated two industrial schools: St Patricks Industrial School, Upton, County Cork; and St Josephs Industrial School, Ferryhouse, Clonmel, County Tipperary. In addition, the Order had other establishments primarily concerned with the education and religious formation of boys and young men intending to be ordained (as priests) or professed (as Brothers). Both the priests and Brothers would be members of the Institute. Those institutions were at Omeath, County Louth; Kilmurry, County Cork; and Glencomeragh, County Tipperary. The Rosminians were principally a missionary Order, and most of the young men trained in their houses of formation were destined for work in their missions.
Committees investigation into Upton and Ferryhouse

1.07 The Investigation Committee carried out a detailed examination into the industrial schools at Upton and Ferryhouse. In June 2004, at the Emergence Hearings, the Institute began by outlining at a public hearing how the issue of child abuse in their schools emerged. Then they gave evidence at public introductory hearings (Phase I) into Ferryhouse, which took place from 6th to 9th September 2004, and into Upton, which took place on 26th October 2004. Between 14th September and 17th November 2004, witnesses from Ferryhouse were heard in private, and between 18th November and 16th December 2004, witnesses who were in Upton gave evidence. Finally, a public hearing in Phase III was held on 9th May 2006, at which Fr Joseph OReilly, the Provincial Superior of the Rosminian Institute of Charity in Ireland, dealt with general issues in both institutions that had arisen in the course of the Phase II hearings. The Institute furnished written statements in advance of the hearings and also provided Submissions following the private hearings. The figures for Upton were as follows: 11 complainant witnesses gave evidence, out of a total of 13 who were invited. Three respondent witnesses testified. The figures for Ferryhouse were as follows: 29 complainant witnesses gave evidence, out of a total of 39 who were invited to do so. Nine respondent witnesses gave evidence. The hearings into Ferryhouse and Upton differed from other hearings, because the Rosminians adopted a markedly different position on the role of industrial schools generally, a position which affected the way they responded to the complaints that were made. The attitude of the Order to the complainants is dealt with in the sections relating to the individual schools, but something can briefly be said here about the position that the Order. Giving evidence on behalf of the Rosminian Institute on 9th May 2006, at the Phase III public hearing, Fr OReilly said that he had no doubt that there were many areas in which we failed and I have no doubt that the entire system was a failure. He said that they were given the task of trying to manage an apparently unmanageable system, and that control was the first priority. He acknowledged that there was pressure to keep up numbers, so as to maximise income from the capitation payment system, and that the numbers themselves presented a problem in caring for children: ... thats why it was a trap, it was trap for us, if we didnt have an adequate number of children then we didnt get a sufficient income. If we had children well in excess of any number, or whatever number it was, then we were into the position of finding that it was more difficult to manage the whole thing. It was a trap. How do you deal with that? 2 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
Fr OReilly said that it was not even clear that children were better off in industrial schools than they had been in their previous circumstances: I think that children were often taken from fairly hopeless situations and they were handed over to despair in a way. Because I am not too sure that we can say definitely that the situation that they found themselves in was an awful lot better than the situation that they had come from. They got some things and there are other things that they didnt get. Frying pan into the fire.
1.15
The industrial school system, he said, was fundamentally flawed and was not capable of fulfilling the needs of children. He did not think that there was any clear objective, or that anybody had a sense of what was going on, or that anybody was really giving direction to it. He was not sure that such strategic thinking existed, even in more recent decades. Unlike other Orders, the Rosminians did not seek solace in the contents of the Inspection Reports of the Department of Education. These reports found the schools to be more or less satisfactory, but identified continuously a need for improvement. Fr OReilly stated that the approach to industrial schools was just making do. He added: Unfortunately, some things cant be done on a just enough basis, you have just enough of this or you have just enough of that, some things need more than just enough. But I think that we had just enough of this, that and the other and we made do.
1.16
1.17
The stance adopted by the Rosminians on the very nature of the industrial schools system was unusual. They were also unusual, if not unique, in that they had begun looking back critically, as long ago as 1990, on the operation of these schools. On 11th May 1990, at the opening of a new development at Ferryhouse Industrial School, the then Provincial, Fr James Flynn, apologised for the abuse that children had suffered in the past in the Institution and then said: Like any human institution, old Ferryhouse had its bad points as well as its good points, its weaknesses as well as its strengths. It damaged some boys and those have looked back in bitterness and anger to their time here. For many of them, this was the only home that they ever knew and sadly they did not find it a good one. Let me say that a lot of that anger is justified ... The greatest guilt has to be borne by those of us who utilised or condoned or ignored the extreme severity, even brutality which characterised at times the regime at old Ferryhouse. An occasion like this is an opportunity for me on behalf of the Rosminians to publicly acknowledge this fact and to ask forgiveness of those who were ill-treated or hurt. We have sinned against justice and against the dignity of the person in the past and we always need to be on our guard that we do not do the same today in more subtle or equally hideous ways.
1.18
Fr OReilly at the public hearing referred to this apology: When we opened the new Ferryhouse we started off by drawing attention to the fact that many of the children who went through the school over the previous hundred years or so suffered, suffered greatly, suffered from fear and suffered ... he spoke about brutality. He spoke about people who condoned or ignored extreme severity, even brutality that characterised the old regime.
1.19
The Rosminians sought to understand abuse, in contrast to other Orders who sought to explain it. They accepted that abuse had occurred in their institutions, and that the institutions in themselves were abusive. The biggest contrast between the Rosminians position and other Orders was in its acceptance of responsibility for what happened in their industrial schools. Even when factors such as inadequate resources were involved, they took responsibility for tolerating them and doing nothing about it. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 3
1.20
Sources of information: the Rome archive

1.21 The Investigation Committee had at its disposal discovery documentation furnished by the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Justice, Garda Discovery, Bishops Discovery and the Rosminians. The Rosminian Order originally believed that the only documentary material it was able to produce on the use of physical punishment consisted of two punishment books for Upton, one dating from the nineteenth century and the other dealing with part of the relevant period, from 1952 to 1963. The latter is incomplete and deficient in some other respects, but is nevertheless a valuable source of information about punishment in Upton. There also appeared to be a dearth of written information on sexual abuse in their schools before 1979, when the issue first came to the notice of the management of the Institute at that time. This belief, that no documentation existed, was reflected in a General Statement submitted by Fr Matthew Gaffney to the Investigation Committee on 3rd May 2002. The position changed with the discovery of an archive of correspondence in Rome, containing letters between the Irish Province and the Superior General about members of the Irish Province. The documents concerned Brothers who had been suspected of, or who had admitted to, or who were found to have engaged in, the sexual abuse of children. The Institute discovered this material to the Investigation Committee in May 2004. The Rome archive consisted of 68 letters written between 20th October 1936 and 11th January 1980. They reveal how the Rosminians dealt with cases of sexual abuse and also reveal the career details of those who had committed such abuse in Upton and Ferryhouse, and these are dealt with in the appropriate sections of this chapter. Sexual abuse was a recurring problem for the managers of Upton and Ferryhouse and for their Provincial. On the basis of these records and the other confirmed cases, it is apparent that there was a sexual abuser present in each of the institutions for much of the period being inquired into, and there were multiple abusers present for significant periods of time. These documents showed how the Rosminians handled cases of sexual abuse perpetrated by staff, and they are also relevant in attempting to establish how much more sexual abuse took place in Upton and Ferryhouse than has been alleged by complainants. The Rome archive also revealed how other members of the Irish Province were dealt with when it was discovered that they had perpetrated child sexual abuse. The Provincial, who for most of the period of our inquiry resided at Upton, was the head of the Irish-American Province, with the two countries operating as a unit. The English Province was separate, and reported separately to Headquarters in Rome. The correspondence discloses that two members of the Institute who served in the USA were found to have abused children in that branch of the Irish-American Province. Neither of the offenders served in Upton or Ferryhouse, but their histories are relevant in considering the attitude of the Institute and of the Irish Province to the matter of sexual abuse and its management.
1.22
1.23
1.24
1.25
1.26
1.27
1.28
The management system and staffing

1.29 The Provincialate of the Irish Province of Rosminians was located at Upton, and the Provincial had his residence there in St Patricks. Each of the schools, Ferryhouse and Upton, was under the control of a Resident Manager, who was appointed by the Provincial. 4 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
1.30
The Religious Community in Ferryhouse comprised between 10 and 12 members, made up of both priests and Brothers, each with a separate area of responsibility. The Rector of the Community also held the post of Resident Manager and was responsible for the day-to-day management of the School. All of the Resident Managers appointed were ordained members of the Institute of Charity. Fr OReilly told the Investigation Committee that the post was not one regarded as a reward for long service. He stated most of the priests who were appointed managers would have worked at some stage on the ground as a Prefect in either St. Patricks Upton, or St. Josephs. Fr OReilly spoke about the calibre of the Resident Managers in Ferryhouse: ... certainly most of the Managers that I know about and have come to know about would seem to have been people who were quite suited to it and who were keen for the position and keen to do something with the work that was there and they were people, I would say, who had a degree of vision at the time, for the most part.
1.31
1.32
1.33
A Spiritual Director assisted the Resident Manager in his management duties in Ferryhouse. The Prefect
1.34
One of the most important staff positions to be held in Ferryhouse and Upton was that of the Prefect. Fr Stefano,1 former Resident Manager in Ferryhouse stated, there was a manager ... and the next people ... on the care side were the Prefects. While the Resident Manager had responsibility for the running of the Industrial School itself, the Prefect was in charge of the dayto-day care of the children. As one witness explained, The Prefect was in charge right through the day and right through the night, you know. Ferryhouse and Upton each had two Prefects, one for the senior group and one for the junior group. Until the 1940s, the Prefect would have been a priest. However, this changed and, from the 1940s, Brothers were appointed Prefects. Each Prefect had sole responsibility for his group, which at times could consist of more than 100 boys. This responsibility was for 24 hours a day throughout the whole year, with little respite or additional help from his fellow Brothers. Fr OReilly told the Investigation Committee: I would say that most of the responsibility fell on the Prefect. Only occasionally could he call on others, who had their own duties to go on with. So if a Prefect was for example, it wouldn't have been uncommon that the Prefect, one of the Prefects who was on, would have to leave to go and look for a child who had run away or go to a Garda station to pick up a child who had been picked up by the Garda, and so all the responsibility rested on the shoulders of the Prefect who remained behind and, indeed, it wasn't uncommon for a Prefect to have to leave a dormitory of children in the middle of the night to go to pick up a child. They, obviously, relied on the other Prefect primarily, you know, to look after the situation. He'd have been made aware of things, as would the Manager.
1.35
1.36
1.37
Fr OReilly explained that Prefects responsibilities covered everything to do with the children: From the time that they got up in the morning, getting children up, sorting out what had to be sorted out, making sure that they were all in place, getting them down to Mass, getting them back up, to breakfast, making sure they got out to school when they got out to school, okay, the school had responsibility then, but almost inevitably, you know, you have a child who is sick or a child who has cut himself or who has got in trouble in
1
This is a pseudonym.
CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
school, and a Prefect who has to pick up the pieces. I mean, I have seen that in my own time working in St. Joseph's, Ferryhouse. 1.38 During non-school hours the Prefect would also have to be constantly vigilant, especially at mealtimes in the School. He would have to manage the dining area where over 150 boys would be eating their meals. Bullying at mealtimes was common: older boys would take the food of younger boys, and these younger boys had to be protected. As a result, the dining hall area was a highly charged situation ... where any number of things could happen. The Prefects were mainly responsible for administering corporal punishment in the School. Boys who badly misbehaved were generally sent to the Prefects office to receive their punishment. The Prefect was answerable to the Resident Manager in all matters. Among the Resident Managers numerous duties and responsibilities was overseeing the performance of duties by the Prefects. Fr OReilly spoke of this requirement: The Manager, although he had other responsibilities, would have obviously had to keep an eye on what was happening. I think the Manager would know on a very regular basis what was going on in the place because, although this might not be a term that everybody would agree with, there would have developed a certain sort of family atmosphere insofar as when you live in a place for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year and there is not an awful lot of change in life, you know, you soon become quite acquainted with everybody who is in the place. Selection and training of the Prefect 1.41 Every September, the Rosminian Provincial would decree assignments to the priests and Brothers. If a vacancy for a Prefect arose in either of the Rosminian Industrial Schools, it was the Provincial who selected the person to fill this role. During the 1940s, the appointment was usually a priest, but later it was normally a Brother who was appointed. Prefects were the younger men of the Order, who were able to manage the task of being in charge of a large group of young, active boys. They would have ordinarily worked as teachers or Prefects in other schools. Fr OReilly stated that the new Prefects would have seen it as a very responsible post, and would have been proud of being appointed, but he added, a few of them would not have been very happy at being selected. He explained: Now there were some men who didn't like being Prefects and I know that one or two would have seen it as I am not too sure what the word is now ... yeah, hell is a good word all right ... A punishment posting. Well, I know, for example, one man has often recounted to me how he was regarded as difficult by his superiors so they appointed him as Prefect. 1.43 Training for a newly appointed Prefect was minimal. The previous holder of the position would initially help the new trainee. However, the period of overlap of the experienced Brother Prefect and his trainee replacement was short, with a week being the norm. Very often, the new Prefect would initially be sent to Woodstown Summer camp to obtain some experience with a smaller number of boys before returning to Ferryhouse or Upton. The young men appointed Prefects had themselves only left school a small number of years previously. A number of the Rosminian Prefects would have completed their secondary education in the Rosminian secondary school, St Michaels, Omeath. Priests who held the position would have completed their third level education. The Rosminians accept that this education wouldnt have been particularly useful for childcare. 6 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
1.39
1.40
1.42
1.44
1.45
Fr OReilly explained: You learnt by the tradition, you know. You were told as a Prefect that this is what you do and you get in there and you sink or you swim. The tradition was useful for a period and then it wasn't useful any longer.
1.46
It was an extraordinarily demanding job. Fr OReilly told the Investigation Committee: It was unnatural what was asked of them, really, and utterly unfair. Quite obviously in retrospect, you know, it was truly unfair what was asked of them. Like, where do you begin with comparisons? I mean, the School that had two Prefects looking after 200 children now has, you know, 35 or 36 children in the school and there are probably in the range of, maybe, 60 to 70 who were childcare workers, you know. In addition, probably another 30 to 40 staff who have auxiliary roles. The evidence of former Prefects to the Investigation Committee
1.47
One former Prefect recounted what he had been told prior to his starting as a Prefect at the age of 22: The advice I was given when I went over there first, make sure they know who is boss and your job was to keep control. There was very little support, I might add.
1.48
He went on to explain why he and his colleagues used physical punishment on a regular basis: Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I suppose the lack of support for ourselves. There was the big numbers and a small amount of staff, there was only three staff at that time. [The absence of training] was a disaster ... you were only going on instinct at that time.
1.49
Another former Prefect, who worked in Ferryhouse for periods during the 1960s and 1970s, complained about the long hours required for the job. He was exclusively in charge of 100 boys, for 24 hours a day, and had limited time on his own. He had just reached his twentieth birthday and had been appointed straight into Ferryhouse in the 1960s as a Prefect. He found his experience of being Prefect difficult to cope with. He agreed that trying to control 100 boys made him feel like a sheepdog. He had no previous experience of any kind in relation to boys in care. When asked how he was trained for the role of Prefect, he replied: Well, you would have just learned from Br Benito.2 He was there before me and, you know, you would have fed into a system in some sense. Albeit there was never any written, any programme as such, you know, of what you should or shouldn't do, like ... Yeah. It was learned on the job, really, I suppose, yeah.
1.50
One Prefect, Fr Antonio,3 spoke about the difficulty he encountered when he was appointed Prefect when he was a young member of the Rosminian Order. A small number of Prefects were required to look after a large number of boys for 24 hours a day. He stated that this system was never questioned by any of them: I don't think we had the courage to do it or the maturity to do it, personally speaking I wouldn't have had the maturity to do it at the time to even question it. Your work was your prayer and you did what you were told to do, you were told you would get religious if you did all your work.
2 3
This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym.
1.51
He explained that the pressure could lead to excesses of punishment: [Was there] physical abuse and that kind of stuff? I'm sure there would be because the frustration would have been there, if you are going to lose control, fear comes in. As time went on things would have improved a lot, but things would have got out of hand, certainly.
The Rosminian approach to allegations of abuse in Ferryhouse and Upton

1.52 The Order, in its Submissions and in its evidence to the Commission, accepted that the abuse of children in its various forms, including physical and sexual abuse, had occurred in both Ferryhouse and Upton during the period under investigation. In the course of a Submission to the Investigation Committee, dated 17th June 2004, Fr OReilly referred to, and quoted from, the apology expressed in 1999, at a time when three former members of the Rosminian Institute had been convicted of sexually abusing children in its care: The members of the Rosminian Institute are saddened and shamed that young people in our care were abused by members of our Order. We deeply regret not only the abuse, but also the shadow cast on the lives of those abused. We abhor all mistreatment of children and we wish to express our profound sorrow. 1.54 Fr OReilly again acknowledged on behalf of his Order that the use of corporal punishment had led to physical abuse in its schools. He also accepted that children had been sexually abused, although he submitted that, amongst those in authority in recent times, there was not any knowledge of sexual abuse prior to the late 1970s. He added that, in the course of working for the Commission, the Rosminian Institute had become aware that sexual abuse had in fact occurred earlier than previously believed. He said that, while the Rosminians did not know by what standard to criticise their predecessors, they did not disassociate themselves from them. In giving evidence to the Commission, they intended to assume responsibility for the past, to account for it, to bear criticism for it and to learn from it. Fr OReilly, in his Submission to the Investigation Committee, outlined the approach taken by the Order in its response to individual complaints made through the Commission: In our individual responses to the Commission, we have apologised and we have intended that our co-operation with the Commission should be seen as an act of apology. In some instances, our apologies have been qualified. In this, we have been fearful of betrayal of our members and shocked by allegations. But we do not challenge the accounts of survivors where we have no good evidence to do so, and we have resolved, where people have been injured in the past, to do no further harm by denial. We have witnessed and read of the courage and trauma of survivors, and it has affected us. We are determined that errors of the past should not be compounded by our conduct in the present. 1.56 During a preliminary hearing held in public on 18th June 2004, counsel for the Order focused on the approach to complaints being taken by the Order: We have resolutely declined to deny a case in which we have no evidence for denial. That is a reversal of all of the established legal procedures ... it has been a difficult task, but it has been, I have to say, a most emphatic decision of the Rosminian Order. 1.57 According to Fr OReilly, this decision was implemented even in situations where the Order found itself in a dilemma. There were instances where a complainant said that he was hurt or abused whilst in the care of a member of the Institute, and the complaints related to a member of the Institute against whom there was no objective evidence, and whose general reputation was that 8 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
1.53
1.55
of a hard-working and respected member of the community. The decision was implemented even though it created a difficulty for the member concerned, or for his family. 1.58 Fr OReilly explained that the Rosminian Institute had decided to take this approach because of the ethos of the Order. They also desired to avoid an adversarial approach to the resolution of conflicts before the Commission. He said that in the past, the Orders responsibility was to work for those who were in their care and that part of their job was to advocate for them before other bodies, before the Department and society in general. That was their ethos, and that was what the Rosminian Institute was about. For that reason, he said: We are not going to contradict that type of approach that we have had throughout our lives unless there is extremely good reason to do so. 1.59 He added that the avoidance of an adversarial approach was also driven by a desire to do no further harm. This was an objective promoted in the course of inquiries into abuse in other countries, such as Canada.4 Nevertheless, he explained, the avoidance of an adversarial approach presented its own difficulties and dangers when seeking to determine the extent to which abuse occurred. The Rosminian Institute had taken the view that a strictly adversarial approach was unnecessary and inappropriate, and that it could create a distracting polarisation of views and obscure the truth. It believed that many of the individual allegations and complaints were beyond proving or disproving, and that such investigation was unnecessary, as the faults and limitations of the schools being inquired into would become apparent without the need to pursue every conflict of evidence. This issue was revisited in the course of written Submissions furnished by the Rosminian Institute at the conclusion of hearings. They wrote: Many aspects are visible through time without confronting uncertainties of memory, or raising the divisive issue of recollection distorted by feeling or shared experiences. These points have some relevance, but can create a distracting polarisation of views and obscure the truth. For some allegations of serious or wilful abuse, this approach may seem like indifference to the truth, or to the reputation of our members. But there is a greater danger in thinking that any length of inquiry could prove or disprove many of the individual cases. We believe we must live with the uncertainty, and deal with matters as a whole. 1.62 The Rosminian Institute asserted that the confrontation of evidence in an adversarial way was also unnecessary because, in many instances, the complainants accounts of hardship, deprivation or neglect were not necessarily contradictory to the evidence given by members of the Order, who described trying to cope with conditions which were brought about by a shortage of staffing, training, and of resources that ought have been in place to facilitate the provision of proper care for the children in their charge. Both sides were describing essentially the same thing, viewed from different perspectives: on the one hand, the former resident was describing a deprived and neglected childhood, with real needs not being addressed; while, on the other hand, the overworked and under-resourced priest or Brother was describing their very real struggle to provide, despite inadequate resources, good care for the children in their schools. At the first public hearing, counsel for the Rosminian Institute outlined their legal position. He submitted that whether boys resident in Ferryhouse were sexually abused was not in dispute, as it is accepted that such abuse did occur. What had to be addressed by the Investigation Committee
4
1.60
1.61
1.63
Law Commission of Canada: + Institutional Child Abuse Restoring Dignity Pt II Responses Guiding Principles at p 7.
was how pervasive sexual abuse was in the School, and the extent of that abuse during the time under investigation. In their statements of complaint, former residents from every era had made allegations of such abuse. While, in general, allegations of sexual abuse were not expressly denied in the Rosminian Statements, such allegations were not admitted either. For this reason it was submitted it would not be appropriate for the Investigation Committee to take the view that the absence of a denial should be deemed to be an admission of the truth of allegations, as may be the case in civil proceedings. 1.64 In an inquiry into an institution, the Rosminians submitted, it was not necessary or appropriate to decide on the validity of each complaint on an individual basis, but it was necessary to determine how widespread abuse was during the history of the Institution. He pointed out that a reasonable insight might be gained by looking elsewhere, beyond the allegations and counter-allegations, to see what was known at the time. Part of the reason for taking this approach was to avoid causing further distress to the former residents of Ferryhouse and Upton. During the hearings, counsel for the Order examined witnesses sympathetically, and, even when evidence was being challenged, it was done with courtesy and care. The Investigation Committee was impressed by the number of apologies that were made. The following are examples:
1.65
we have learned since your statement to the Commission came in that Br Lazarro5 did sexually abuse boys, I hope you will accept the Rosminians apology if that happened to you. We haven't ever suspected it of [the other Brother] and I am sorry to ask you questions about it. I am ashamed to ask you questions about what you describe about Br Valerio6 (the questioning that followed was solely to elucidate how contact was made after the boy had left the school). I don't want to ask you much at all because the hardship you have described deserves not to be investigated in any way or questioned. We accept what you have said, we trust the truth of it completely. There is one very big thing, which you have done today. [Your evidence] is a testament to the pain you suffered and others with you.
1.66
While many witnesses found it hard to accept the apologies made by the Rosminians for the pain and hardship they had suffered, it may have helped them to find that their evidence was treated by the Order in such a sympathetic way. This approach facilitated investigation. Counsel for the Rosminians often brought out details that might have been missed. He elicited facts about school routines, practices and conditions, in order to gain as much information as possible from witnesses. Sometimes, they were asked to fill in gaps in the knowledge available to the Order. The Rosminians were correct in their submission following the Phase II hearings by stating that: the faults and limitations of the Schools become apparent without pursuing every conflict of evidence.
1.67
The leather straps

1.68 The official instrument used to administer corporal punishment was the leather strap. There were two kinds: one was a single piece of leather a 1 of an inch thick (0.63cm). It was about 19 inches 4 long (48.2cm), and 21 inches wide (6.3cm), with one end shaped to form a handle. It was used to 2 slap the palm of the hand. It weighed 5oz (147grms).
5 6
10
1.69
The second kind was a doubler. It was made in the shoemakers shop from two layers of leather approximately 21 inches wide (6.3cm) and 22 inches long (55.8cm). The two strips were sewn 2 together and, again, one end was shaped to form a handle. Br Antonio, who worked in Ferryhouse, confirmed that coins were sometimes inserted between the two layers of leather when this strap was being assembled. He told the Investigation Committee: And they are right what they say, because I opened the leather myself and saw there were coins in the leather strap, which were stitched in the shoe shop.
1.70 1.71
Without coins, the strap weighed 11oz (311grms). It is likely that different straps were in use from time to time, and it is not certain that all of them contained metal or coins within them. One witness described the effectiveness of these two kinds of straps: If you are out in the yard they carry their own straps, some of them, and it is only a small one. You wouldnt even feel it.
1.72
The Brothers carried the leather straps on them. The heavier strap was kept in the Prefects office.
Finance
1.73 The Investigation Committee commissioned chartered accountants, Mazars, to examine the accounts of Upton and Ferryhouse with a view to assessing the application of state funding to the institutions, and the financial consequences for the relevant institutions as a result of caring for the children over the period 1939 to 1969. The Mazars report is in Volume IV. Limited financial information was available. No accounts had survived from the 1940s, in respect of Upton or the Irish Province of the Institute of Charity, and only two years accounts, 1941 and 1947, were available for Ferryhouse. No accounts were available between 1954 and 1960 for either of the schools or for the Irish Province. The 1960s had better records for all three bodies. It is impossible, therefore, to assess the actual day-to-day costs of running the industrial schools. Mazars analysis of the capitation grant, by reference to Household Income and Unemployment Assistance, would indicate that funding was adequate for both schools in the 1940s and 1950s, although Upton would have been more financially challenged because of the fall of numbers in the early 1950s. In Ferryhouse, high numbers and a farm of good-quality land should have ensured a reasonably good basic standard of living for the boys. Once numbers of residents began to fall in the 1960s, financial problems would have arisen and, indeed, this led to the closure of Upton in 1966. By the time the Kennedy Committee reported in 1970, the capitation grant as a system of funding, which depended on high rates of committals, was clearly inadequate, and alternatives had to be found. In the case of Ferryhouse, these alternatives were not finally put in place until the early 1980s, when an annual budget based on submitted estimates was agreed with the Department of Finance. During the 1970s, however, significant increases in the State grant alleviated the position for those institutions like Ferryhouse that continued to operate.
1.74
1.75
1.76
11
12
Chapter 2
St. Patricks Industrial School, Upton (Upton), 18891966
Introduction
The original building
2.01 When a local judge in Cork requested the setting up of a reformatory school to serve the area, the Cork Society of St Vincent de Paul set up the Cork Reformatory Committee in 1858, to plan such a school to contain juveniles outside adult prisons. They bought a 112-acre farm at Upton, 14 miles from Cork city, and asked the Rosminians, who had experience of such work in England, to take charge of the Reformatory. A building was designed by Richard Brask, architect, and was completed at a cost of 5,000 in 1860. The lease was transferred to the Rosminians in 1872. The buildings formed a square, surrounding a central courtyard. Fr Moses Furlong, the first Superior of Upton Reformatory, launched a Patronage Fund to gather public support for the work of the Reformatory. He pointed out in 1867, that the boys in the Reformatory came from all parts of Ireland. He reiterated the founding ideal when he wrote: An instants reflection will convince anyone that no matter how carefully a lad may be trained for a few years, his safety is fearfully imperilled if he be returned to his old haunts and old associations, with no money, no assured occupation, no friends but his former criminal companions, and no character but that of one who had been a criminal.1 2.03 When the Industrial Schools Act was extended to Ireland in 1868, the Rosminians sought to have the School reclassified as an industrial school. It was certified as one in 1889, and was called Danesfort Industrial School. It continued as an industrial school until it closed in 1966. It was an imposing building, two storeys high, with extensive farmlands around it. One witness who was there in the late 1950s, told the Investigation Committee: It was a beautiful place ... [it] was beautiful for a visitor going there. It was better than Butlins, but for us inside the walls it was a completely different thing. It wasnt just one day, it was every single day of your young lives. It was beautiful sometimes. 2.05 A former resident from the late 1950s and early 1960s said: On arrival, as far as I can recall, it was into a yard that looked like a prison. It was a kind of castle yard, like an old military parade ground, which a lot of children of my own age, younger, a few maybe older, had been walking around almost in circles. It was frightening. Naturally, I was crying lonely it was.
1
2.02
2.04
Quoted in Brd Fahey Bates, The Institute of Charity: Rosminians. Their Irish Story 18602003 (Dublin: Ashfield Publishing Press, 2003), p 74.
13
2.06
Another witness, from the late 1950s and early 1960s, said simply but evocatively: When I arrived at Upton first, when I saw it, it looked like a mental home to me. Thats what it actually looked like, a mental home.
2.07
Initially, Upton consisted of a big house, located on a farm of 112 acres. The size of the farm was increased over the years and, at the time of its closure, it was approximately 220 acres. The main building was in the form of a square around a central courtyard. In later years further buildings, such as a chapel, a hall and various outhouses and workshops, were added. The School was under the control of the Resident Manager, who was appointed by the Superior or Provincial of the Irish Province. The School was run according to the principles laid down in the Rules and Regulations for Danesfort Industrial School. The Resident Manager was responsible for the staff. They may be grouped into four categories: the Members of the Institute of Charity; the Dominican Sisters; the Teaching Staff; and the lay staff who worked in the various trade shops or on the farm. In addition, members of the Institute of Charity sometimes lived in St Patricks while studying elsewhere, in University College Cork, for example. The Religious staff worked in various capacities: some were Prefects, with responsibility for the control and supervision of the children; some were Secretaries, with responsibility for administration; and some taught in the School, or worked in the various trade shops or on the farm. The Dominican Sisters of the Congregation of St Catherine of Siena worked in the School in various capacities from 1946 to 1955. The School also employed a number of lay teachers, who were paid by the Department of Education. The staff also included a number of farm hands or lay staff that worked in the trade shops. The School was funded by the Department of Education and the appropriate local authorities. A large part of the building was destroyed when an accidental fire occurred in Upton on 21st July 1966, but it was not the reason for the closure of the School.
2.08
2.09
2.10
Closure of the School

2.11 Upton closed on 1st October 1966. There had been ongoing discussions within the Order for a number of years previously regarding its closure. The falling numbers, lack of trained staff, and the reorganisation and rationalisation of the schools run by the Order ultimately led to its closure as an industrial school. The minutes of a Provincial Council meeting held on 19th November 1964 recorded that the writing is on the wall as far as this particular work of charity in Upton is concerned. On 1st March 1966, the decision was finally taken to close the School within six months from April 1966. The certificate of the School was resigned on 1st October 1966. At the time of its closure, there were 83 boys in the School. These boys were either released or transferred to other industrial schools. 16 boys were transferred to Letterfrack, 10 to Artane, 10 to Tralee, and 28 to Ferryhouse. It reopened in 1972 as a centre for adults with mental handicap and learning disabilities. The Institute of Charity handed over ownership of the School to the State in 2003, but it continues to exercise a pastoral role.
2.12
2.13
2.14
Number of boys in Upton

2.15 In 1889, Upton was certified for the reception of 200 boys, with an accommodation limit of 300. The number of boys in the School who were committed through the courts fluctuated during the years 1937 to 1966. In 1937, there were 137 boys detained in the School, and this number 14 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
increased to 217 in 1943. As can be seen from the table below, the numbers declined between 1943 and 1958. In 1959, however, the numbers increased significantly to 216, owing to the closure of Greenmount Industrial School and the transfer of boys from there to Upton. Thereafter, the numbers declined steadily and, at the time of its closure in 1966, there were 83 boys in the School. During its life as an Industrial School, approximately 3,000 boys were admitted.
Year 1937 1939 1941 1943 1945 1947 1949 1951 1953 1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1966 Number of boys committed 137 105 136 217 212 189 142 139 121 128 124 216 195 189 126 83
2.16
The rise and fall in the numbers in the School can be seen from the graph below:
Number of Children Under Detention in Upton 250 200 150
Number
Line 1 100 50 0
2.17
The number of admissions to Upton was a cause for concern to Fr Giuseppe,2 the Provincial, in early 1939. In correspondence in February 1939 he mentioned that the falling numbers were
2
19 37 19 39 19 41 19 43 19 45 19 47 19 49 19 51 19 53 19 55 19 57 19 59 19 61 19 63 19 65
Year
15
causing him some anxiety and that he had got a local TD on the job now to bring pressure to bear on the Minister to send extra transfers to Upton until our numbers have reached an economic number. A month later, in March 1939, he again wrote to say that he had spoken to the then Minister for Education, Thomas Derrig, about the matter. However, according to him there was little prospect of increasing numbers, as the Department was governed by a recommendation of the Cussen Commission that children should be sent to the school that was nearest to their place of origin, and Mr Derrig was disinclined to override the regulations of his Dept. He wrote that, when he saw the Minister, he showed him a copy of their accounts and emphasised that they were neither able nor prepared to continue to fund the School from their own finances. In a letter sent later in the same year, he again mentioned that he was in talks with the Department about the great inadequacy of the grants and the injustice to the religious orders in expecting them to meet the costs out of their own funds or by heavy borrowing, when funding should be done by the State. 2.18 By November 1939, it appears that Fr Giuseppe had enlisted the help and support of Mr Eamon DeValera, the then Taoiseach and acting Minister for Education: Dev. is taking up the matter of our school. I am informed that he has been convinced that we have been unfairly discriminated against in the way of transfers and committals and we are told to expect results soon. 2.19 In 1941, Fr Giuseppe was happy to note that the numbers had increased from 110 at the beginning of the year to 144.
Physical abuse
Concessions made by the Rosminians
2.20 In 2002, Fr Matthew Gaffney, the Provincial of the Irish Province of the Institute of Charity, submitted a general statement on behalf of the Order to the Committee. In this statement, he accepted that corporal punishment was used as a general disciplinary measure, and was also used as a punishment or deterrent for bed-wetting, absconding and other infringements. The use of corporal punishment, he said, had to be seen in two contexts: first, from the perspective of the Institution, and second, in the light of the social attitudes of the time. From an institutional perspective, he asserted that the maintenance of control was an absolute necessity, and was achieved through the use of corporal punishment. He accepted that its use produced a disciplinary environment in which the distinction between punishment and abuse could become blurred. Indeed, he accepted that abuse had occurred in the administration of some corporal punishment, and he apologised for this fact. In their Opening Statement, dated 17th June 2004, the Rosminians reiterated their awareness that corporal punishment has led to abuse and was known from time to time to have been excessive. But they asserted that the use of corporal punishment was regulated to some extent by the spoken instructions of the Manager of the School, recording, and by trust in the judgement of those in charge. Having heard the evidence at the Phase II private hearings, the Order were willing to make more concessions on this issue. In their written Submission in 2006 after the Phase III hearings, the Order accepted that corporal punishment was often used to excess and was generally too readily used as a solution to the problems of the Schools. Departing from their earlier stance, they conceded that the standards of the time are not an adequate excuse or explanation. They went further, and conceded that the problems with corporal punishment were partly due to its discretionary and unregulated use, particularly by the Prefects who were unsupervised. 16 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
2.21
2.22
2.23
They submitted that: The susceptibility of corporal punishment to abuse seems inherent. If left to discretion, a cause can always be found for its use, especially where authority is threatened or insecure.
2.24
Fr OReilly at the Phase III public hearing referred to the inherent difficulties in using corporal punishment in circumstances where there were no clear policies or guidelines. He described it as a trap: Corporal punishment is a trap, if you allow corporal punishment without having the most clear guidelines possible, it is a trap, it is a trap for everybody. It is a trap for the boys and a trap for the adults. Because what you are saying is it is okay to hit children. And there are times when they do things that are wrong and that are very, very wrong, and that cause an enormous problem for the entire Institution. So inside yourself you think, well, it is okay, and the only response is to punish even more. It is a trap.
2.25 2.26
He did concede that, at times, the punishments that children received were brutal. The Order admitted that corporal punishment was used for absconding. Absconding was a serious problem, because of concerns for the safety of the boys, and the possibility that they could damage neighbours property. Fr OReilly conceded at the Phase III hearing that boys who ran away were often severely punished because of the problem that it created in the School, the unease that it created among the rest of the boys. The punishment administered was either slaps on the hand or on the buttocks with a leather strap. He conceded that, on occasions, boys had to remove their trousers for punishment. While each absconding was recorded, reasons for absconding were not. He agreed that many ran away because they were homesick, fearful or deeply unhappy in Upton. He also accepted the possibility that boys absconded because of physical or sexual abuse. He acknowledged that, from time to time, boys heads were shaved as part of the punishment for absconding. All children who absconded were punished, and ringleaders were likely to be punished more severely. One form of punishment was benders, the administration of the strap on the buttocks, but, he asserted rarely on the bare buttocks. The Order also accepted that boys who wet their beds were given corporal punishment. They were known as slashers and had their own section of the dormitory. Between 10 and 25% of the boys wet their beds, and for most of the period covered by the inquiry would have been slapped. Towards the later years there was less slapping for bed-wetting. The Rosminians also accepted that boys had to take their wet sheets to the laundry in front of other boys and, while it may not have been the intent, the Order accepts it was deeply embarrassing for them.
2.27
The role of Prefect

2.28 The Institution was run on regimented lines and the daily routine was subject to a strict regime of order and discipline. The Prefects main purpose was to maintain discipline and control over a large number of boys, and this they did by using corporal punishment. The job was described by Br Marcello,3 who was in his early 20s when he arrived to take up the position of Assistant Prefect in Upton in the mid-1960s. He said, our work, or job was to contain the thing so that everything else ran, to a certain extent, fairly smoothly. He was questioned about his use of the word containment to describe the situation, and he reiterated that this term did describe how he felt. He felt he had to contain situations in order to ensure that they did not blow out of proportion. The Prefects were constantly vigilant for potential trouble.
3
2.29
17
2.30
He explained that discipline was maintained through the use of the strap or giving the boys a clatter, the term used for a blow with the hand. Corporal punishment was used on a regular basis and, with 100 boys to control, someone was getting it more or less all the time. The range of offences that resulted in corporal punishment varied. Something small, like talking in the line for example, would warrant a clatter, but serious incidents were severely punished. He recalled giving a boy eight slaps of the leather on each hand for stabbing one of his companions in the tailor shop, and then being told by the Senior Prefect that he had not given the boy enough slaps. He was asked what, in his view, was the purpose of corporal punishment. He answered: Discipline, it was necessary. Because there were only two of us and any relaxation of discipline at that particular time could have caused havoc in the school. That was the position we had at that particular time. We thought that it was necessary ... I still think in the circumstances there it was necessary.
2.31
The boys were punished on the spot for minor offences by whoever was in charge. More serious offences that warranted fairly severe punishment were dealt with by sending the boy to the Prefects office for punishment, usually administered with a leather strap. He conceded that boys could be punished on the spot with a clatter and then could be sent to the office for further punishment. The Prefect never inquired if a boy had already been punished, so it was possible that boys would be punished more than once for the same offence. Many of the witnesses felt aggrieved over this fact. When asked whether corporal punishment was a first or last resort for the Prefect, he replied: I think it was always the first resort ... We didnt have any other resorts ... A lot of the time I was frightened because at any time, if there was a concerted effort by the boys they could have flattened me.
2.32
2.33
2.34
He had no training for dealing with delinquent boys, nothing in his religious or scholastic training prepared him for it. There was no coherent scheme or policy for the boys in those years: It was piecemeal, it was different little things we did, but there wasnt the concerted effort that we have made in the last 20 years.
2.35
Another Rosminian priest, Fr Christiano,4 who had also been a pupil in Upton, gave evidence to the Committee from two perspectives. He was in Upton as a pupil during the 1950s. He remembered an atmosphere dominated by punishment, which was meted out for misdemeanours such as talking in the dormitory, or causing difficulty for the supervisor in the workshop. The punishments were usually administered in the office by the Prefect. He recalled a particular incident of group punishment, when some boys, who had been confined to a small recreation room for the day while others attended a sports event, were punished for trashing the room and scattering the board games. His impression was that each boy got about 20 benders, and he recalled that it only stopped because an older boy challenged the Brother who had been beating the boys until he had exhausted himself. Fr Christiano was a promising student and was sent to the Rosminian secondary school in Omeath. He remembered it felt like getting out of prison. He also recalled there was no corporal punishment in Omeath. The atmosphere there was not punitive. He believed that, before Upton closed, it had deteriorated and had become a punishment regime. At some time during each day, there were boys being punished. When he returned to Upton from Omeath during the holidays, he and the other secondary students ate in a little refectory situated
4
2.36
2.37
18
close to the Prefects office, and far too often they could hear the bang of the strap. By the time the witness was in university, and Upton was coming to a close, the School had changed from his early years, when it was relatively benign, into an excessively punitive place. 2.38 When Fr Christiano was asked how he reconciled the religious life, which involved love, charity and kindness, with a system that required men of the cloth to be brutal and severe, he replied that he did not believe that this was a requirement. The post of Prefect did involve the obligation to impose discipline, but he did not see the need to be brutal: I later became a Prefect in Ferryhouse and one of the things I did was throw the strap in the river, in the Suir in Ferryhouse, the one I had. There is a different way. We have the feast of St. Don Bosco every year, he was a man who loved children and I read there is a reading in the book his instruction to his Brothers about looking after children, and I say, my God, why didnt anyone show some of our lads this piece?. 2.39 When asked whether he found a different way, he replied: No, I would say my judgement of Prefects was that those with better education or more culture were much better than those who were not educated and didnt really have much of an idea what to do except keep order. 2.40 When it was suggested to him that he had found a better way through education, he replied: Oh absolutely. My experience at Upton, it just made me never ever let that happen to anybody if you can possibly do anything about it. When I was in charge, I was not going to be a Prefect like I had seen. 2.41 The use of corporal punishment as a general disciplinary measure for absconding, bed-wetting, and other infractions, many of which were of a very minor nature, produced an all-pervasive climate of fear. One former pupil described it as follows: I suppose first of all the place you were in, and obviously the people that were allegedly looking after you. I think they probably controlled these places with this fear, I believe. It was just a climate of fear that you were going to get hit, you were going to get beaten, something evil was going to happen to you. There was no happiness; there was nothing to be glad about. Maybe the only part of escaping out of that place was probably when you went to sleep, that was probably the only escape you had from the reality of that place. 2.42 Many of the witnesses described the fear they felt when they had to wait outside the office for punishment. One witness said the fear and the waiting remained a more vivid memory than being struck with the leather.
Documentary evidence the punishment books

2.43 The main documentary sources dealing with corporal punishment in Upton are two punishment books, the first covering the years from 1889 to 1893, and the second relating to the period 1952 to 1963. The obligation to maintain a record of punishments went back to the beginning of industrial schools in the late 19th Century, and this was re-reiterated in Rule 12 of the 1933 Rules and Regulations. This rule required all industrial schools to maintain a punishment book for serious misdemeanours, and also stipulated that it was to be shown to the Inspector of the Department of Education when he visited: All serious misconduct, and the Punishments inflicted for it, shall be entered in a book to be kept for that purpose, which shall be laid before the Inspector when he visits.5
5
2.44
1933 Rules and Regulations for the Certified Industrial Schools in Saorstat Eireann, Rule 12.
19
2.45
However, out of all of the industrial schools examined by the Investigation Committee, only Upton and St. Josephs Industrial School, Dundalk, were able to produce punishment books, and then only for some of the period under investigation.
2.46
The Upton books are leather-bound volumes, with double pages of entries set out in tabular form and divided into six columns, giving spaces for: the date of the offence, name of offender, nature of offence, by whom reported, the punishment given and remarks on the case.
2.47
The first book for Upton spans the period 1889 to 1893, and has 87 pages of details of punishments. The later book, for the period 1952 to 1963, consists of only 18 double pages of entries. While the earlier book is of interest by way of comparison and is a valuable historical source, the later volume, covering years relevant to this inquiry, is of real importance. There are, unfortunately, serious deficiencies in the record keeping in this later book, but the contents are highly significant.
The 1952 to 1963 book 2.48 The first problem with this punishment book is that it is nothing like a complete record for the period between the first entry and the last. There are long gaps in time between dates and entries appear out of chronological sequence. It is obvious that the book was not kept up to date and that it was not filled in carefully or systematically.
2.49
Another problem is inconsistency in the breaches of rules that are recorded in the punishment book. Between 1952 and 1954, there was almost no entry for punishment of immorality, yet from September 1954 onwards it was almost the sole reason for punishment. Given the frequency of punishments for immorality, it would be expected that there would have been some record of punishment for it in the first period, and, in the second period, there must have been some occasions when boys were punished for reasons other than immorality.
2.50
There is a gap at the front of the book where pages appear to be missing. There is nothing to indicate the reason for removing them.
Contents of the punishment books 2.51 The offences listed between 1952 and 1954 include stealing, disobedience, giving cheek, absconding, lying, laziness, smoking, talking at Mass, wasting food, horseplay, rough play, missing from yard, and being out of bounds. Also listed on a very small number of occasions was immorality with other boys.
2.52
The recorded punishments varied according to the offence committed, and consisted of being hit with the leather strap on the hand or the buttocks. They were usually noted as being over pants, but on three dates in 1953 the book records that boys were punished by slaps without pants. Their offences were run away, stole school property, run away, give cheek to a Brother and destroying clothes. The number of slaps with the leather strap on the bare bottom ranged from 6 to 15. These three dates in January and February 1953 are the only occasions when punishment was recorded as being given on the bare buttocks. 20 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
2.53
The following table provides some examples of offences and punishments for 1952 and 1953:
Date 26 Nov 1952 20 Dec 1952 20 Jan 1953 Offence Giving cheek and being disobedient Disobedience in continually playing soccer Run away, stole school property [3 boys committed this offence] Give cheek to a Brother Destroying clothes [2 boys] Disobedience, sulking, slothfulness Disobedience to Prefect Disrespect for teacher Lying and helping himself to bread and butter in the pantry Fooling and talking at Mass In boiler house having a rest Destroying his coat Throwing good food away Neglect of religious duties Stealing and running away Smoking in W.C. Plotting against the Prefects an enemy in the camp Punishment 6 over pants 6 over pants 10 without pants [for one boy] and 15 without pants [for two boys] 12 without pants 6 without pants [each] 6 on pants 6 on hands 6 on hands Six on hands 8 on hands 5 over pants 4 on hands 5 on hands 12 over pants 6 over pants 6 over pants 10 over pants
22 Feb 1953 23 Feb 1953 22 April 1953 22 June 1953 24 June 1953 25 June 1953 5 July 1953 6 July 1953 9 July 1953 2 Sept 1953 5 Sept 1953 21 Sept 1953 28 Sept 1953 13 Oct 1953
2.54
The entry for 19th September 1954 marked the beginning of the period of intense concentration on immorality. The last entry recorded that 18 boys were punished for immorality. The first 10 of them were guilty of wretched immorality, and each of them received 20 slaps over pants. The remaining eight boys were also found guilty of wretched immorality but yet not so frequently. Despite this mitigating circumstance, these eight boys nevertheless received the same punishment of 20 over pants. A simple calculation shows that, on this day, one Brother administered 360 strokes of the leather strap on the buttocks of 18 boys. An entry in the book dated 17th November 1955 recorded punishment, for immorality with other boys, of 20 over pants, and concluded with the comment: A coward when faced with the music. But when Arturo Toscanini took the baton in his hand, there was more music in Beethovens Fifth than one expected to find.
2.55
2.56
This was not explained in the book but it seems to be a self-congratulatory and pejorative reference to the cries that the beating produced. The Prefect, Br Alfonso,6 who made the entry gave evidence to the Investigation Committee, and denied that the reference to Beethoven in the context of being conducted by Toscanini had anything to do with striking the boys, but was to do with making them sing.
6
21
2.57
A further entry dated 20th November 1955 recorded sexual offences by nine boys, including the same boy referred to in the above quotation. This time, the entry reads: Observe that these boys have repeated the same offence they were up to their eyes in it any time they got a chance: their activities were confined to their own happy circle and no one else could enter where angels fear to tread.
2.58
A comment about one of the boys displayed an awareness of peer sexual abuse, as distinct from immorality among consenting boys: A new offender interfered with many small boys.
2.59
Other examples of punishment in the latter part of the book, from 1954 to 1963, are set out in the following table:
Date 19 Sept 1954 19 Sept 1955 19 Sept 1955 19 Sept 1955 19 Sept 1955 28 Sept 1956 31 Jan 1959 Offence Immorality wretched [18 boys] Immorality wretched, yet not too frequently [one boy] Immorality not so extensive [one boy] Bad conduct immorality [4 boys] Immoral talk [2 boys] Immorality [2 boys] Immorality under the eyes of others in the billiard room [2 boys] Immorality with others [6 boys] Immorality with others Immorality with others [2 boys] Immorality with others [2 boys] Immorality with others Immorality in school giving bad example to small boys also going on with filthy talk Immorality with others while supposed to be working in sacristy Punishment 20 over pants [each] 20 over pants 15 over pants 10 over pants [each] 3 over pants [each] 4 over pants and 6 over pants 10 over pants [each]
26 Feb 1960 04 Mar 1960 05 Mar 1960 08 Mar 1960 04 April 1960 5 Jan 1962
10 over pants [for 5 boys] and 8 over pants [for one boy] 10 over pants 10 over pants each 10 over pants each 10 over pants 20 over pants
9 Jan 1962
20 over pants
2.60
The first punishment book for Upton spanned the period 1889 to 1893. For most misdemeanours, the punishment ranged from three to eight slaps of the leather and, for the more serious offences such as immoral conduct, cursing, immodest language and absconding, the number of strokes ranged from 10 to 15. The highest number recorded in the book was 15, and this occurred only twice. The next highest number of slaps was 14, which also occurred twice. 22 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
2.61
Sexual acts amongst the boys did not seem to be a major problem at that time. A few instances were recorded in 1890 of immodest conduct and immodest language. A boy received 15 slaps on 5th April 1890 for immodest conduct. On 9th June 1890, nine boys were found guilty of immorality in the fields, and six were given 12 slaps, two received nine slaps of the leather, and one boy received no punishment. The only other example of immorality amongst boys is recorded on 11th December 1893, when five boys were found guilty and were stripped, and four received eight slaps and one received seven slaps of the leather. The most striking difference between the two books is that the earlier book is systematic, with a chronological method of recording the information. These entries make it probable that it is a full account of punishments for serious misconduct during the period covered, as required by the rules. The later book compares unfavourably with it: it is not comprehensive, it is unmethodical, and is often not chronological. In addition, the severity of punishment in the later book is greater than the earlier one. Impact of 19521963 book
2.62
2.63
The information in the 19521963 book tended to undermine and contradict the recollection of former staff of the School as to the punishment regime. The severity of punishment, as recorded in the book, is greatly in excess of what some respondent witnesses remembered. Br Alfonso was insistent that the amount of punishment was not excessive, and he was quite vigorous in defending his position. The numbers of blows recorded in the book, however, were wholly in conflict with his recollection, and counsel for the complainants suggested to him that the evidence of this book was more reliable because it was a contemporaneous record, and the Prefect or other person recording the punishment in the book had no reason to exaggerate the amount. The intention must have been to give an accurate description of what was inflicted. Apart from Br Alfonso, the Investigation Committee had evidence in the form of correspondence from Br Giovani,7 who served in Upton for one year in the 1950s, a period covered by the entries in the book, which gave a different impression of the level of punishment from that indicated in the punishment book. The entries in the punishment book demonstrate that the severity and frequency of beatings were greater than what were recollected by the staff. This discrepancy explains why accounts given by complainants, whose credibility was not in doubt, differed so markedly from the accounts given by respondents. This conflict appears in other institutions investigated.
2.64
2.65
2.66
2.67
The 1952-1963 punishment book provides evidence of the severity of punishments that were inflicted in Upton in the 1950s and early 1960s. It contradicts the recollections of Br Alfonso and Br Giovani, who recalled that punishments were not excessive, and supports the accounts given by the complainants. The later book contrasts unfavourably with the one kept in the late 19th century. It is not comprehensive, it is not methodical and is often not chronological, and the severity of punishment is greater. Some of the comments in the book suggest that they were not written in anticipation of an official inspection of the book, and there is no record of any such inspection. The punishment book is not a complete record, but it is accurate in respect of the punishment that it records.
23
The book does not demonstrate an ordered system of punishment that was properly supervised and recorded on all occasions. The punishment books are not a complete record of punishments administered during the periods they cover. It is highly likely that other beatings were also administered.
Evidence of respondents
Br Alfonso 2.68 Br Alfonso was a dominant figure during his time in Upton. He held the position of Prefect for a number of years from the mid-1950s. He was physically strong, and evidence from former residents confirms this. One former resident was asked to describe Br Alfonso. He said: He had a bubbly personality, he had a wonderful structure. He was a brilliant golfer and a brilliant hurler ... To me, I was his lap dog. If he hit a sliotar and it went into the woods or into the nettles, me in my short little pants had to go and look for it and bring it back to him. Likewise, with a golf ball. And if you couldnt find it you stayed until you did. 2.70 Another witness described the strength of Br Alfonso when he administered the strap: He really physically forced (indicating). It was like a golf driver and he was a golfer. Thats what he used to spend his time, playing golf. He used use the straps like a golfer. I never got so much pain in my life. 2.71 Br Alfonso said that corporal punishment in Upton was an essential tool in the maintenance of order in the School. He was given no training or advice regarding its use, which was a matter solely for his discretion. Other members of staff would send boys to him for punishment, and he always knew the reason for the punishment. He said that he always recorded his punishments in the punishment book and that the Resident Manager inspected his book regularly. When the entries in the punishment book were first raised with Br Alfonso during the investigation into Ferryhouse, in questioning about absconders, he said: The most strokes on the seat of the pants they would get for anything like that, if it were that, would be 10 strokes, that was a lot but that was what it was, that would be the maximum. 2.72 He went on to assert that 10 would be the maximum number of strokes for any offence. He confirmed that the Prefect made the entries in the book after the punishment was given. When the information in the punishment book showing 20 strokes given on the bare buttocks on a boy for immorality was put to him, he was incredulous: That couldnt possibly have happened during my time ... That never ever happened. I put my hand on that Bible there, that never happened. 2.73 He was adamant that he himself had never exceeded 10 slaps when hitting a boy. However, when he was shown the punishment book, he had to admit that when he was Prefect he had himself meted out punishment of 20 strokes on the buttocks for sexual offences committed by the boys, for immorality and wretched immorality. He went on to justify the bigger punishment because it was for wretched immorality. The importance of the punishment book can be seen from this exchange. Not only does it provide a contemporaneous account of the administration of corporal punishment, but it also affords corroboration of the evidence of some of the former residents who were adamant that they had received punishment in excess of 10 strokes. 24 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
2.69
2.74
2.75
Punishment was administered in the Prefects office, and it could happen, albeit rarely, that a boy would have to wait outside the office for punishment. Br Alfonso disliked the term punishment, and described his position as follows: Punishment would be administered well, I dont want to call it punishment, but I have written in that book which I have there that when boys were chastised, I will use that word, they were advised. So there would be lots of advice going on instead of punishment.
2.76
This phrase lots of advice, to describe multiple blows with a strap on a boys hands or buttocks, minimises the whole nature of corporal punishment, which is exercising control by inflicting pain. He went on to say that punishment was not administered to boys of all ages, but he refused to be drawn on the age at which punishment started. Counsel for three complainants referred to the entry for 19th September 1954, the day on which it was recorded that 18 boys were each given 20 strokes for wretched immorality. Br Alfonso was unable to recall the occasion when so many strokes had been administered, although it was simple arithmetic (but erroneous because counsel thought 17 and not 18 boys were involved). On a number of occasions during his cross-examination, Br Alfonso appeared to find some of the suggestions made by counsel for the complainants derisory. One such instance arose when a witness gave evidence that he had felt children were being used like lap dogs to collect your ball. Br Alfonso was asked why he found this derisory: No, and the reason I laughed, excuse me, no, they were my children, I loved them. I had no approach to the children like that at all, they were wonderful and that is all and they are still my children and that so, just I could never treat any child like that as a lap dog, I could not do that.
2.77
2.78
2.79
He suggested, instead, that the boys played golf with him and they would all be having a good time. He said that, during his time in Upton, he never beat anyone for bed-wetting and never saw anyone being beaten for that reason. He said that, when boys were sent to his office for punishment, they did not always get a beating, as sometimes he gave them an orange or an apple. When asked if he thought he was strict or fairly strict, he preferred to describe himself as fair. In his evidence before the Committee in the Ferryhouse hearings, he was asked to comment on the following quotation from his submission to the Inquiry: During all those years I fought many battles for the boys, of which they know nothing. I am not ashamed to say that I often wept silently in empathy for the boys who were trapped within a system, which lumped together delinquents and orphans, an arrangement which compounded the problem.
2.80
2.81
2.82
He recalled someone saying to him once that it was a good thing for orphans to be exposed to delinquents, but this made no sense to him at all. In his view, orphans were coming from different places and needed entirely different treatment to delinquents: Not that the delinquents need have to get rigid treatment, or anything else like that, but theyre coming from a different background, a different experience and everything else, and the orphans are a different people altogether. And so to expose them to that type thats the orphans, to that type of criminality I dont ever use that word because I never treated them as criminals, they were all my own children, every one of them. But to expose them to children who had such deviousness in their lives in the form of theft and all these type of things, that they had agenda hidden up their sleeves all the time, to expose them CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 25
to that was to encourage them to come in to that and to me there was something criminal about that. 2.83 2.84 He described Upton as a place of great activity, seething with action, excitement. The complainant evidence in respect of this Brother is dealt with below. The letter of Br Giovani 2.85 Br Giovani joined the Institute of Charity in the early 1950s, a month after he was professed. He was appointed Prefect at Upton soon after, a position that he held for a period of 12 months. In a letter written in the late 1990s, he painted a picture of what it was like to be a Prefect in Upton during the 1950s. He viewed his appointment as Prefect as an awesome responsibility for one so young. Br Giovani had just completed his religious instruction and had received no official training or instruction for his new job. The only advice he received came from his former Novice Master, Fr Cecilio,8 who told him, Dont be a police man. These five words constituted his only introduction to a job which involved both him and his colleague, Br Alfonso, taking responsibility for the care and control of over 300 boys. Br Giovani said that he was never furnished with a precise description of what it was he was supposed to do, but it did entail the coordination of the activities of nearly all of the 300 boys from morning till night. He said that there was very little in the way of recreational activities for the boys when he was appointed. Not surprisingly, in light of their youth, both he and Br Alfonso attempted to remedy this deficiency by instituting a range of games and activities for the boys. He described Br Alfonso as a talented organiser, who was considered totally devoted to the task of trying to improve the lot of the boys. He said that the Prefects were responsible for the discipline of the boys. The Prefects had the authority to administer three slaps with a leather strap on the palm of the hand. The Prefect was obliged to record the incident in the punishment book. The Rector, Fr Fabiano,9 would periodically review this book. Further punishment could only be administered with the consent of the Rector. He said that this consent would only be given in severe cases, and he stated that he personally could not remember any incident where further and extra punishment was administered. Br Giovani stated that there was no brutality, cruelty or physical abuse in Upton during the 12 months he was there. He stated that, while the regime in the School was austere and harsh, the level of corporal punishment would have been commensurate with the levels pertaining in every other school at the time. Indeed, he stated that, during the period which he spent in Upton, great strides were made to reduce the levels of corporal punishment. However, in a later letter, he compared the regime to that of a concentration camp, accepting that Upton was not a pleasant place to be as a pupil, and stated that he felt guilty for not having done more to help the boys. He stated that all he ever did was complain while others tried to help in a more practical way.
2.86
2.87
2.88
2.89
Evidence of complainant witnesses

2.90 The earliest witness account came from a boy who was admitted in the late 1940s. He recalled being physically punished for bed-wetting. He was also punished in the classroom by the lay headmaster, Mr Maher.10 He described a number of incidents involving two of the Prefects, including one beating given to a boy who absconded because his father was dying and he was
8 9 10
This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym.
26
not allowed to go to his funeral. He described the Prefects as being over the top in inflicting punishment. He explained: This particular man was always over the top, the two of them were definitely over the top. Any time I was hit or beaten or attacked, or hit by anyone, it was always in a rage ... 2.91 He disputed entries in the punishment book of two and three slaps, as he said the boys were always given more and remembered the Brothers making the entries in the punishment book. Another witness resident in Upton in the mid-1950s described the regime as brutal from the first day. He particularly recalled Saturday, which was shower day. No matter how hard the boys tried to clean themselves, it was never good enough for the Brother in charge. The boys would be clattered back into the shower with an open fist or with the leather if their nails were still dirty. Punishment with the leather was almost a daily feature for things like talking in the dormitory, talking in the ranks, etc. The most vicious Brother was Br Donato.11 The witness recalled being punished in the washroom one day, because he could not explain how he came to have a spoon in his pocket; he had actually dug it up in the garden earlier in the day. His legs were so bruised from the beating, it was noticed by Br Nico12 the following day in the garden. He assumed Br Nico admonished Br Donato for the beating because, a few days later, he received a further beating from Br Donato for telling tales. There were two Brothers who were siblings in Upton, Br Orlando13 and Br Donato, and the witness claimed they were both vicious. Prior to Br Nico arriving in Upton, this witness recalled that the person in charge of the garden was very tough. This witness recalled that all punishments, except for minor offences, such as having holes in ones socks, were administered in the washroom. The leather was administered on the buttocks. He was only ever hit on the hand in class. The typical number of strokes of the leather administered was between 6 and 12, with the exception of Br Donato who kept slapping with the leather until the boy would eventually fall down. The worst experience for him was the physical abuse. The sexual abuse he was subjected to was not brutal, and the Brother who sexually abused him would give him sweets, so he did not see it as being as bad as the beatings from Br Donato. A witness present in the early 1960s recalled his very first experience of physical abuse. The boys were out for a Sunday walk and, on their return, they used the toilet and were talking to each other in there, unaware that it was against the rules. Br Alfonso overheard them and sent for them up to the office, where they were made to bend over a stool and hold the legs of the stool. Br Alfonso administered six benders on that occasion. The witness was not the first of the four to be punished: I wasnt first, I dont know who got the first one. Someone was first. Three of us would be standing watching this and believe me when you get one of these, if you thought you couldnt jump, you would jump when you get one of these, six feet in the air, no problem, especially with Br Alfonso. He really physically forced. (Indicating) It was like a golf driver and he was a golfer. Thats what he used to spend his time, playing golf. He used use the straps like a golfer. I never got so much pain in my life. I remember the first one of those I got. I never thought anyone could go through so much pain as what we went through with them. I got six of those and you were that colour, all your hips would be that
11 12 13
2.92
2.93
2.94
2.95
2.96
27
colour for weeks after and (indicating) you couldnt tell no-one. If you told anyone you would get more. 2.97 Other Brothers, including Br Donato and Br Ludano,14 gave him beatings, but none were as severe as Br Alfonsos. He did not accept the contention that punishments were limited to three slaps on the hand. He said that he was slapped on the hand on one occasion, and the rest of the time he was beaten on the buttocks, and he sometimes got between 12 and 14 strokes of the leather. A witness who was also resident in the early 1960s said that, from his earliest days in Upton, the daily routine often involved receiving a smack on the face for minor things, such as not getting out of bed quickly enough in the morning. He was only 10 years old at the time, and remembered how boys had to stand to attention all the time, even when they were being beaten by a Brother. After dressing, the boys went to the yard and then to Mass. Any misbehaviour at Mass resulted in being sent to the office for benders: Punishment in St. Patricks, Upton was a regular thing. I would have to say it was you went to school, you went to bed, you went to work and there was nothing but fear, fear, fear. It was just fear the whole way. 2.100 He recalled receiving one severe beating from Br Alfonso. He was about 11 years old when he was accused of scamping, a name used for masturbation. He also described how it was a regular enough occurrence for a boy to be brought to the office for punishment, this usually related to the boy being accused of scamping. He also recalled hearing the screams and cries of boys who had been taken from their beds in the evening to the office for punishment, as the office was situated underneath the centre of the dormitory. Punishment by the Prefect was normally administered in the office, but the boys could be beaten anywhere, in the washroom, or in the shower room on Saturdays. One witness resident during the early 1960s recalled an incident when the boys were watching a film, which they did not enjoy and, at the end of it, they gave a slow handclap. Each boy was brought out into the yard, one by one, and called into the washroom and beaten. He thought there were about 150 boys punished in total. This fact was confirmed by another witness. He recalled one Brother, Br Alfonso in particular who often beat him. The Brother was fond of music and particularly of hurling and golf. He used to make the boys fetch his golf balls and beat them if they couldnt find them. He said that punishment was normally administered on the buttocks with a leather strap. According to him, the minimum number of strokes with the leather was six, and he said If you didnt get six you didnt get anything and if the punishment was administered on the hand he would be very lucky. Another witness remembered being taken out of school to attend to the needs of an ill priest. He said he did not smoke at the time, but was accused of stealing Lucky Strikes from the priests room. He denied he had ever done such a thing, but Br Marcello brought him upstairs to a classroom and told him to put on swimming trunks and proceeded to beat him severely. He also recalled a boy who was extremely thin being leathered in the showers by Br Marcello. This Brother requested that this witness should hold the boy down while he beat him. He said he refused to do this because the boy was so young. Finding oneself in the wrong place at the wrong time was a matter for punishment, according to one witness. He received the leather for not having his socks darned. He later attended a normal
14
2.98
2.99
2.101
2.102
2.103
28
national school, and was anxious to differentiate between the slaps that were acceptable there as compared with the punishment in Upton. He said: The level of punishment, the force, the ferocity of it. It was done in such a savage manner that it was way beyond anything that you could class as being the norm. 2.104 He did not agree with the Resident Manager, Br Alanzo,15 who wrote in the late 1950s in response to a complaint, which compared the treatment of boys in Greenmount and Upton, that the leather strap was rarely used. He thought that what was written was an untruth. One witness said he was not long in Upton before he was called into the office by Brs Ludano and Donato, and questioned about his brother who had been in Ferryhouse and was now in Daingean. Once they established they were siblings, the Brothers said words to the effect we wont make the same mistake with you and proceeded to strike him across the face and gave him benders on the buttocks with the leather. He was black and blue from this beating. He recalled being beaten also by a Fr Gian16 on the farm, but the main punishments were meted out by Brs Ludano and Donato. The witness spoke about the punishment for immorality with others. He explained how, every couple of months or so in Upton, Brs Ludano and Donato would take a boy into the office and strap him until he offered up the name of a boy who had been scamping with him. This went on as the next boy would name another boy, it was a never ending ... circle.
2.105
2.106
Internal survey carried out by the Rosminians

2.107 A decision was made in 2002 by the Rosminian Order to carry out a survey of all surviving Rosminian Brothers and priests, to assess the extent of their knowledge of physical and sexual abuse at the time. The survey was carried out in respect of both Ferryhouse and Upton. In response to a question about knowledge of physical abuse in Upton, the following responses were elicited: Br Tomasso17 said that, although he had never witnessed anything himself, he did recall hearing that Br Alfonso administered excessive punishment on a number of occasions. Fr Stefano18 said that he thought that there were a number of cases of excessive punishment. One anonymous respondent, when asked whether he felt that corporal punishment was excessive, replied: Yes, the longer I spent there: but then, there were few Fr Flanagans in Ireland: nobody knew any better: it was common in most places at that time. 2.111 When asked if the Rector was aware of the fact that excessive punishment was being administered, he stated: If he wasnt Blind, deaf and dumb, he must have known: but he didnt know any better. In my years as prefect there was a punishment book, wherein we, prefects had to write in all punishment three slaps were allowed. This was Fr Fabianos idea: it ended with him. 2.112 Fr Gustavo19 said that he witnessed Br Alba20 beating boys in the old infirmary for talking in the dormitory. He said that he questioned Br Alba but was told to mind his own business. He said that he heard that Br Alfonso was tough and cruel.
15 16 17 18 19 20
2.108
2.109 2.110
This This This This This This
is is is is is is
a a a a a a
pseudonym. pseudonym. pseudonym. pseudonym. pseudonym. pseudonym.
29
2.113
Br Flavio21 said that, while he was a scholastic in Upton, he often saw punishment administered. He implied that this was excessive in nature as, in the next sentence, he stated while in charge of discipline in Omeath, I too punished excessively; when asked whether the Rector, Frs Alanzo and Eduardo,22 knew about the excessive violence, he replied not sure if the rector knew all the sordid details probably not. He identified Brs Donato and Alfonso as excessive punishers. All Brothers surveyed agreed that there was inappropriate punishment in Upton.
2.114
Conclusions on physical abuse

2.115 1. It was not in dispute that physical abuse took place, and the only issues were how widespread it was and how brutal. 2. Physical abuse was widespread and systemic. Excessive punishment was an everyday occurrence and was brutal and severe. 3. Like many other institutions, Upton kept control over the boys by maintaining a climate of fear. 4. Corporal punishment was used by religious and lay staff as an instrument of control as well as for the purpose of chastisement. 5. The punishment book of the early 1950s documents brutal corporal punishment. 6. Punishment was not supervised or controlled and the severity of punishment was a matter for the individual who administered it. 7. The abusive nature of the regime as recalled by complainants is corroborated by the entries in the punishment book, and by some of the religious.
Sexual abuse
Orders approach to allegations of sexual abuse
2.116 At the Phase III public hearing held on 9th May 2006, Fr OReilly, Provincial of the Rosminians, went further than previous concessions, saying that: I accept totally that there are people out there who have also been who have been sexually abused in our institutions who have not come forward to this Commission. I know that, and we accept that, there are people who were abused in our institutions, sexually abused who have not come forward to this Commission, or to any or indeed to other forum. 2.117 Fr OReilly was asked whether the attitude of the Order in relation to the issue of sexual abuse had been changed by the evidence given at the Phase II hearings. He responded: I think we have grown in appreciation of the impact that being in the industrial schools had on the children. I think we feel different about the whole thing now than we did previously. Two years ago we had come an awful long way, I think we have come further since then. I think it has impacted on us enormously. 2.118 Fr OReilly acknowledged that the response of the Order, in the wake of revelations of sexual abuse, had been inadequate. He did concede that it was the fear of scandal which prompted them to keep quiet about the situation. However, he justified this response on the basis that those in authority at the time lacked a proper understanding of the situation:
21 22
30
I think clearly at the time they did not want the scandal to be known, because they felt it would affect the entire Institution. I think they had a very immature sort of understanding of what the problem was ... 2.119 He did not concede that the Orders primary motive was to protect the abuser and cover up the situation, and instead asserted that those in authority at the time did know it was wrong and that it was hurtful to the boys and that that was the first priority. However, they did not seek at the time to consider the impact of such abuse on the boys. Although knowing it was wrong, such sexual abuse was not reported to the Garda until 1995, despite the Order being aware of sexual abuse in the 1960s and, more particularly, in 1979. Instead, known abusers were moved to other institutions.
The Rome archive

2.120 Related inquiries led to the discovery of cases in 1956, 1957 and 1959. Questionnaires were circulated to members of the Order who had little or no involvement with the Industrial School. These corroborated the written material and referred to other previously unknown allegations. Fr Gaffney also stated that he had asked the Superior General of the Rosminian Order in Rome, Fr James Flynn, to carry out a search for documents containing references to sexual abuse through all the records of correspondence between the Generalate and the Irish and English Provinces. This search disclosed a considerable number of documents, 68 in all, dating from 1936 to 1968. They dealt with, among other things, seven sexual abusers who worked in Upton. The Rosminians provided this information, together with the questionnaires and related material, to the Committee in May 2004. These documents proved to be very significant and came to be known as the Rome files.
2.121
Documented cases
2.122 Respondent evidence and the Rosminian survey disclosed that sexual abuse perpetrated by a lay teacher and employees in the Institution had been discovered and was dealt with through the removal or transfer of the offenders. Little information was available as to the nature of the abuse that was discovered or the circumstances in which it was detected. It is clear, however, that a large number of the perpetrators of the abuse were discovered as a result of the activities of Br Alfonso, who zealously pursued a policy of relentlessly rooting out and punishing sexual activity among the boys. This Brother was responsible for the exposure of six persons who were committing sexual abuse of boys in Upton. He served in the Institution from 1953 to 1960. In his curriculum vitae, he wrote: I also enlightened the boys who had been molested by the staff members, of the evil that had been perpetrated against them. I left no stone unturned to eradicate this evil. 2.125 Complainant witnesses confirmed the prevalence of sexual abuse by some of the Brothers during this period. The question is whether the period during which Br Alfonso served in Upton was a particularly bad period for the occurrence of sexual abuse, or whether it merely showed what could be detected or discovered by one campaigner. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 31
2.123
2.124
2.126
Fr Carlo23 2.127 Fr Carlo was posted to Ferryhouse in the late 1930s as Prefect, and remained in the School until he was transferred to Upton a few years later. The information that is available about his departure from Upton is limited. The Superior General, Fr Montes,24 wrote to the Irish Provincial, Fr Giuseppe, stating: Fr Carlo told me, sincerely, I think the whole story. He tearfully acknowledged his mistake. I sent him to Diano Marina on the sea between Genoa and Nice ... He accepts his present situation as a penance but I am convinced that we will have to find a place for him by September. Could he not go to America? ... I can understand that you were relieved at his departure. One could have had certain fears for the Upton house, also because, in the past the Government had some unfavourable reports regarding morality between the boys, as you will recall. 2.129 Although the letter in this case does not say it, it is apparent that the reason for Fr Carlos departure was very serious, and that he was extremely contrite about it. He left the School at an unusual time of the school year, so it may be inferred that his transfer was made urgently, rather than waiting until the late summer when transfers took place. His situation at the time was a penance, and the Superior General was faced with a problem of where to put him. The Provincial was pleased at his departure from Upton, and the Superior General acknowledged that there could have been fears that were related to immorality between the boys. Fr Montes thought of sending him to America, a solution that was employed on a number of other occasions for people who sexually abused. There was no indication of any other abuse or fault that could have accounted for Fr Carlos unseasonal departure, and in the circumstances the inference is that, on the balance of probabilities, Fr Carlo was guilty of sexual abuse in Upton. He continued to work as a priest in a number of parishes in England until his death in the late 1970s.
2.128
2.130
2.131
The probability is that Fr Carlo was removed from Upton because of sexual abuse but the matter is not beyond doubt. The inferences from Fr Montess letter are all indicative of sexual abuse, as indeed is his use of allusions rather than specific terminology in his letter to the Irish Provincial
The Rome file: Fr Santino25 2.132 Fr Santino worked in Upton from the late 1950s to the early 1960s, when he died just before he was due to be transferred to a teaching position at Omeath. He began sexually abusing children in England some time after he was ordained a priest in the 1920s. He served in his first parish for 20 years before it was discovered that he had been sexually abusing children. He was then quietly transferred to another parish. The Provincial, Fr Andrea,26 wrote to the Superior General, saying that, although the change had caused some surprise, he was glad to say that it was received quietly enough. He stated that the fact that it occurred at decree time, a time when changes in staff would have been common, made it less conspicuous. Fr Santino was not happy with the transfer and wrote a letter of complaint to the Provincial who noted in a letter to the Superior General that:
23 24 25 26
2.133
This This This This
is is is is
a a a a
pseudonym. pseudonym. pseudonym. pseudonym.
32
The curious thing I note is that his compassion is merely for himself. He does not seem to realise the injury inflicted upon his victims and the consequences to them of his conduct. To me, at all events, this aspect of the affair is the most dreadful. 2.134 The Superior General agreed, and suggested that in Fr Andreas reply to Fr Santino he should stress the need for Fr Santino to pray that, The persons to whom he has done such great harm will not carry its ill effects for their entire lives. This exchange shows how both the Provincial and the Superior General were acutely conscious of and apologetic for the hurt and pain caused to those who suffered abuse at the hands of Fr Santino. 2.135 In the late 1940s, in his new parish, it was discovered that Fr Santino had again lapsed. Badly. The newly appointed Provincial, Fr Arturo,27 stated in a letter to the Superior General, Fr Montes, that he had been trying to figure out what to do with Fr Santino, but he had come to the conclusion that there was no work in the English province that he would feel justified in allowing him to do, except perhaps as a Minister of a Rosminian house at Rugby. However, he stated that he could not place Fr Santino there immediately, because of the admiratio28 that it would cause to the members of the institute. Fr Arturo suggested sending Fr Santino to the Novitiate at Kilmurry, County Cork in the Irish-American Province for a period of six months, and that his face could be saved by making it part of an exchange between the two provinces. He added that Kilmurry was a place where Fr Santino would be safe for the time being. Fr Montes replied that the latest revelations constituted really bad news, even if not completely unexpected. He told Fr Arturo that he had stressed the need to inform the local Rector in Kilmurry of Fr Santinos history, so that the latter could keep an eye on him. He informed Fr Arturo that he had been in communication with Fr Orsino, the Provincial of the Irish-American Province, about what could be done with Fr Santino. He noted that Kilmurry was short of space and that the only available position was that of confessor of novices, a position that Fr Montes stated that he couldnt in conscience give him that, even apart from his deplorable weakness. He said that Fr Santino deserves to do two months of penance at Melleray, and he gave permission for him to be sent there. He also noted that Fr Santino will always be a problem because he does not acknowledge the evil he has done, and suggested that he would be somebody for Fr Torre29 to study. Fr Torre was a member of the English Province who had some skill as a psychotherapist. Fr Santino went to the Cistercian Abbey at Mount Melleray in the late 1940s but, instead of staying for a period of months, he remained for 10 years and only left because the Cistercians would no longer have him. The problem then was to find a place for him. It was thought that Ferryhouse was not suitable because: Melleray and Clonmel are both in Waterford diocese and news travels even from the hidden depths of Melleray. I should be surprised if he returns to England. Perhaps he is the Providential answer to the quest for an English confessor at Porta Latina. 2.138 For the time being, Fr Santino was sent to Kilmurry, pending a decision to place him on a more long-term basis. The Superior General thought of sending him to Florida but nothing came of that. In 1959, Fr Santino sought permission to visit his family in the UK whom he had not seen for years. This came to the attention of Fr Arturo, the Provincial in the United Kingdom, who wrote to his Superiors in Rome in March:
27 28 29
2.136
2.137
2.139
This is a pseudonym. Latin for curiosity, astonishment, surprise. This is a pseudonym.
33
I am very worried about Fr Santino. I presume that you know his sad history. In spite of the fact that his misdeeds are known to quite a few people here in [parish] he has been writing, I understand from Fr Lanzo,30 to various people here in [parish] saying that he has returned to the Institute etc. My fear is that he will want to return, perhaps on a visit, here, to see some of his friends. In my opinion it would be really dangerous of him to return here at all, since, if some ill-intentioned person were to denounce him to the police, he would be in danger of arrest, and the scandal produced would be disastrous. Hence I would ask you to make sure that he does not return to England and particularly to [parishes where he worked] ... I do not know whether Fr Placido31 knows all the circumstances of the case, and I have therefore not wished to write to Fr Placido direct about it. I do not think my fears are exaggerated, Fr Santino is a man who has been singularly blind to implications of his case, and seems quite capable of thinking that he can act as though his past were forgotten, and that he could start afresh as though nothing wrong had happened. I therefore beg of you to take what steps are necessary to ensure that he does not return to England. 2.140 Fr Arturos worst fears were confirmed when he received word that Fr Santino was proposing to call to the parish where he first worked, to see his brothers and sisters: As I said in the letter I have just written to you, in my opinion, in no circumstances must he go to [parish] to tell the truth I do not like the idea of his coming to England at all, since what he did in both [parishes] is a criminal offence for which he could be prosecuted. He seems to have no sense of the fact that he is disgraced man in the eyes of, at any rate, some people in [parish]. 2.141 The Superior General wrote to Fr Santino forbidding him to leave Ireland. Fr Arturo, in another letter to his Superior in Rome, set out his concern more specifically: Most Reverend and very dear Father General, Fr Santinos trouble is homosexuality. When I became Provincial, my predecessor Fr Andrea, thought it his duty to let me know that for 15 years (on and off I suppose) Fr Santino had been corrupting boys in [parish]. It was known to various people, but none dared come forward and report it. Fr Andrea, as soon as he knew about it, removed Fr Santino immediately to [another parish]. But the same thing began to occur again at [this parish]. Fr Calvino32 telephoned me urgently one evening, and I went straight down to [the parish] and sent Fr Santino immediately to Ireland; there was danger of prosecution by the police this offence being a criminal one in England. I interviewed Fr Santino, and suggested to him that the only thing for him to do was to retire into some place like Mount Melleray and do penance. This he did. He seems incredibly unaware of the gravity of the whole position. Fr Lanzo tells me that when Fr Calvino was appointed rector of [the parish], Fr Santino wrote an indignant letter to the Provincial, to Fr General and to the Generals monitor, complaining that after all his years of faithful service, he had been passed over for a rectorship!! Also Fr Lanzo tells me that during these last years he has frequently written to [former parish] people, and they have been to see him at Melleray. Fr Lanzo has imagination, I know, but there is probably foundation for what he says. I remember too in my last interview with him eight years ago that he blamed Fr Andrea for his troubles, because Fr Andrea had always been hostile to him. And from my last letter (which you apparently had not received when you write to me) he is actually expecting to be allowed to return to [former parish] for a visit oblivious of the fact that for a certain number of people in [former parish], he is a completely disgraced person. Fr Santino tells me in the letter he wrote asking permission to come that he is translating some writings of the Founder with a view to publication. I
30 31 32
34
think it would be a disaster to have any writing of Fr Founders published over Fr Santinos name. 2.142 In August 1959, Fr Placido was again required to deal with Fr Santino because Fr Salvatore33 was no longer willing to keep him in Kilmurry, where he was having an unhealthy influence on certain members of the professed and also on some of the novices. He suggested that, if no alternative could be found, he would as a last resort be compelled to keep him in Upton but warned: there would be grave risks in accepting him here considering the class of boy we have in certain age groups here. Despite this anxiety, Fr Santino was assigned to Upton and he remained in the School until the early 1960s when he died suddenly, just when he was due to be transferred to a teaching position at Omeath. A former resident, who was present in the School from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s, alleged that Fr Santino sexually abused him: Fr Santino did approach me from the back with both hands on my shoulder. I felt him leaning up against me, in doing so I ran away. I did so, I met a particular Brother, Br Ludano, at the end of the stair who asked me why was I running, I told him why and I was punished for it. 2.145 During cross-examination, counsel for the Rosminians apologised for the abuse that this witness received. He asked him how Fr Santino was perceived. The complainant replied that he remembered Fr Santino as being very approachable, with a great way with children. He would talk to them all day. Fr Gaffney accepted his allegations in his responding statement: I have no justification for doubting the complaint of sexual interference made against Fr Santino, and those actions were shameful and wrong. I apologise for the hurt inflicted on [this witness] and for the association of the Rosminian Institute of Charity for that conduct. It was profoundly against the ideals and expectations of the institute. 2.146 Another former resident of Upton, who was there from the mid to late 1950s and who himself was subsequently convicted of paedophile offences testified that he engaged in mutual masturbation with Fr Santino, whom he described as the only adult who seemed to take any interest in him. He stated that the relationship lasted a couple of months. The story of Fr Santino sheds light on the Rosminians attitude to child sexual abuse at the time. In a letter from the Provincial of the English Province to the Superior General, the Provincial showed his awareness of the injury inflicted upon his victims and the consequences to them of his conduct. The Superior General replied, stressing the need for Fr Santino to pray that the persons to whom he had done such great harm will not carry its ill effects for their entire lives.
2.143
2.144
2.147
2.148
The Order was aware of the damage caused to victims of sexual abuse. Although the Provincial and Superior General were critical of the offender in this case, they did not take steps to prevent further injury or harm being perpetrated on other victims. Although Fr Santino was known to have sexually abused children for many years in his first posting, he was transferred to another post where he repeated the abuse. He was transferred because of fear that there might be a police investigation and without regard for the safety of children. The next move took him out of the United Kingdom and brought him to Ireland, again for the purpose of obviating investigation.
33
35
It is clear that Fr Santinos conduct in each of his postings in Britain was criminal, and that he offended repeatedly to the knowledge of his superiors. His transfer from one English parish to another was irresponsible. The Order was aware of the risk that he posed and of the damaging impact of his behaviour on his victims. The transfer to Ireland was for the purpose of Fr Santinos spending a short penitential stay in Mount Melleray. It was obvious that full information should have been given to the Abbot so that careful supervision could be exercised, but there is no evidence that such steps were taken and he remained in the monastery for a period of 10 years. Assigning Fr Santino to a position in Upton was irresponsible and reckless. With the knowledge that the Order possessed about his past history and attitudes, they must have been aware of the likelihood that he would sexually abuse boys in this Institution. It follows that the Order was prepared to put boys at risk in order to find a place for somebody who might cause public scandal if he were to be located elsewhere. The documents do not indicate any attempt by the Order to dismiss Fr Santino from the priesthood. They appear never to have given consideration to the possibility of doing so.
The Rome file: Br Umberto34 2.149 Br Umberto joined the Rosminians in the mid-1940s. He made his perpetual vows eight years later. He was posted to Upton as an Assistant Brother in the mid-1950s, and remained in the School for approximately three years until he was transferred to Kilmurry to work on the farm. The reason for his transfer was that he had been interfering with the boys in Upton, and the details were set out in a letter from the Irish Provincial, Fr Placido, to the Superior General, Fr Lucca,35 in which he said that the Brother: Who had been previously warned by the Rector [Fr Fabiano] and myself has not been discreet cum pueris [with boys] and is a periculum [danger] to them so I have been compelled to send him to the Novitiate house where circumstances are different. 2.151 It is clear from Fr Placidos letter that it was not the first time that Br Umberto had offended, but there was no evidence that dismissal was considered. Fr Lucca approved the decision to remove Br Umberto, and he remained in Kilmurry until the early 1960s when he was sent back to Upton. Although there was a new Rector, who may not have known the recent history at the time when Br Umberto returned, Fr Placido was still Provincial and in residence at Upton. On this occasion, the Brother remained for approximately six years, until he was transferred to Omeath. He continued to be a member of the Order until his death.
2.150
2.152
2.153
This Brother was found to be committing sexual abuse with boys notwithstanding a previous warning, and the Provincial reacted by moving him to the Novitiate House where circumstances are different. This decision appears to have been a short-term expedient, because the Provincial returned the Brother to Upton five years later, notwithstanding the danger that he represented to the boys. The case of Br Umberto is interesting because he left Upton while Br Alfonso was Prefect, yet he is not mentioned by Br Alfonso. It is surprising that Br Alfonso, a relentless pursuer of sexual abusers, did not hear of this case, particularly because of the reference to Br Umbertos having been previously warned by both the Rector and the Provincial. It illustrates the secretive way in which abusers could be removed.
34 35
36
Returning Br Umberto to Upton in the early 1960s amounted to reckless disregard of the safety of the boys, particularly as at that time a known sexual abuser who had served years at Upton had recently been uncovered. There should have been an appreciation of the need to eliminate the risks the boys faced.
The Rome file: Br Constantin36 2.154 Br Constantin was sent to Upton in the early 1950s, where he remained until he was transferred to Kilmurry. He was transferred in November, not at the more usual time of September, because he had been discovered sexually abusing children. The Brother subsequently applied for a dispensation from his vows two years later and, when it was granted, he left Kilmurry. The correspondence between his superiors concerning his application for a dispensation provides some information about his sexual activities. In a letter to the Superior General concerning the matter, the Provincial, Fr Placido, stated: I enclose the request of Br Constantin for a dispensation from his final vows ... He was ... here at Upton ... when he asked for a transfer to Kilmurry as his contacts cum pueris hic erat ei periculum [with boys, this was his danger]. He was getting out from here as he was really under suspicion and investigations were being made regarding some serious matters. I regret to say that he was most seriously involved in the case of at least two. 2.156 The Provincial asked the Rector of Kilmurry, Fr Salvatore, to write to the Superior General, setting out his views on the matter. In a letter, Fr Salvatore wrote: Br Constantins case is a sad one. He came here [Kilmurry] over a year ago from Upton. Fr Provincial will, no doubt, have informed you that this Brother had great difficulty in observing his vow of chastity. His Rector at Upton was forced to send him away from that house because he had proof that, in two cases at least, he had sinned with boys. The fact that he is still a religious is due to the charity of his Superiors because, generally, in these kinds of cases the rule is to send the accused person away. I must say, Father, that Constantin himself did ask his Superiors to take him away from the occasion [in the sense of the occasion of temptation]. Sending him here was seen as saving his vocation but it is not like that. 2.157 The letter from Rome to Fr Placido informed him that the dispensation sought from the Order of Religious had come through. The letter went on to say that the dispensation itself was retained in the Rosminian archive in Rome. Br Constantin was, therefore, free to return to the world without further delay .... Former Br Constantin reappeared in the early 1960s at Mount Melleray Seminary, Cappoquin, County Waterford, as appears from a letter to the Provincial: Dear Father Provincial, We had a student here last year named Constantin who spent some time in your Congregation. It was only quite recently that information of that fact reached me. He was admitted here on the recommendation of a priest in England and I would never be satisfied to keep him without a reference from his former Superior had I known he was in religion. I am writing now to you for a reference for him as I am expecting him back soon and he will get a bit of my mind for not telling me he was with you. He is very quiet and well conducted as a student but that would not be enough to get him into a major seminary later on. With every good wish, I am, dear Fr Provincial, Yours sincerely in DIE President
36
2.155
2.158
37
2.159
There is no record to show whether a reference, or even a reply, was sent, nor is it known whether this ex-Brother joined the Cistercian Community. Further light on this episode emerged from the evidence of Br Alfonso, who described how one of the boys complained to him about Br Constantins activities, which he immediately reported to the Rector and the Provincial. An Assistant Prefect at the time, Fr Giovani,37 in a statement supplied to the Committee confirmed the discovery of abuse by this Brother and another: Later on we were both scandalised and shocked and distressed to find that two lay brothers, ... were also sexually molesting the boys in their care. Immediately Br Alfonso and myself reported this to the then Provincial of the Institute of Charity, Fr Orsino, I.C., who removed the offending Brothers: one brother later died in the institute, Bro Fausto,38 the other, Bro Constantin, left the Rosminians and I havent heard of him since.
2.160
2.161
2.162
Another Rosminian, Br Tomasso, who was lodging in the School at the time, responded to a Rosminian questionnaire as follows: As a student ... residing in Upton [during the 1950s] I made enquiries about Bro Constantin when he had been absent for some time and was told by Fr Gian that he had been interfering with boys, and had left the Order.
2.163
When the Rosminians discovered this Brother was sexually abusing boys, the first response was to move him. There does not appear to have been any proper investigation of the extent of his activities because Fr Salvatores letter says that the Rector at Upton had proof in two cases at least. There were very possibly more. It would appear that he went on to be a problem once more in Kilmurry, because sending him there was seen as saving his vocation but it is not like that. The priority was again keeping the matter secret. Permitting the Brother to obtain relief from his vows avoided the need for a formal process, which suited the Order, and was convenient for the offender, particularly as the actual dispensation was not even contained in his record. Taking this course meant that minimal information was recorded about the departure of the Brother from the Order.
The Rome file: Br Fausto 2.164 Br Fausto was sent to Upton as Assistant Brother in the early 1930s. He made his perpetual vows in the mid-1930s and later was transferred to Omeath. He spent another year in Upton in the mid1940s. He returned to Upton in the early 1950s, and worked in the Community kitchen. He was moved to Ferryhouse approximately three years later, and his record card indicated that this was done during year. He was transferred to Glencomeragh in the early 1960s. He died in the early 1980s. This Brother was discovered to be sexually abusing boys in the 1950s. Br Alfonso said that he discovered that Br Fausto had been sexually abusing children at the same time that he found out about Br Constantin. Fr Giovani corroborated the discovery of Br Fausto in his statement. A complainant, resident in the early 1950s, gave evidence that his brother, while being punished by Br Alfonso, complained to him that he was being abused by a Brother whose name the witness did not recall correctly, but by a similar-sounding name: When he started laying into him with the strap my brother turned around and said that he was abused by a Brother called [similar sounding name to perpetrator] ... Br Alfonso
37 38
2.165
38
stopped dead in his tracks, put the strap back in the thing and he couldn't apologise enough. [The Brother] was removed from the school shortly thereafter ... No, I did not witness that. My brother mentioned it to me a couple of years ago, three or four years ago. 2.166 The note of the Brothers transfer to Ferryhouse in the mid-1950s during year would indicate that there were urgent reasons for the transfer, and that it did not occur in the ordinary way, carrying the implication that there was some apprehension on the part of the authorities that dictated the move. In other records, there are references to this Brother that are suggestive of improper conduct on his part, but nothing that was clear and unequivocal or that could be understood without knowing the evidence of Br Alfonso and Fr Giovani. Fr Fabiano, Resident Manager at Upton, wrote to the Provincial at Rome referring to this Brother. He said that he had done nothing more about an episode concerning him. He added: as it would be needlessly bringing things into the limelight again and I could do nothing without authority. The assertion about [Br Fausto] came up casually as having happened in the past and I decided that the prudent thing to do was leave it in the past while you decided what should be done. My own opinion about the matter is that he should quietly get a change and be taken out of the danger because it will always be there. 2.169 Other documentary references to the Brother are even more vague, although generally suggestive of reasons for apprehension about his behaviour. For example, one comment read, Fr Salvatore ... told me that he did not consider Faustos influence there as being to the spiritual advantage of the Novices. Another reference discussed his suitability as follows: you dont mention Kilmurry; from what Fr Salvatore ... was saying to me, I have my doubts if Fausto is the best one for that house. But the Novice Master holds him in high esteem. 2.171 Another document remarked that his conscience was in a class of its own: I hope Fausto wont be a destructive element in the Novitiate I think he has a conscience that is sui generis.39 At Omeath he used to bring the Scholastics with him, secretly, for a smoke. 2.172 In another letter, the Resident Manager said he knew of the Brothers propensities for particular friendships. In a letter from the Superior General to Fr Orsino, Provincial in Ireland, he wrote: As regards the other, I can understand that because he flatly denies everything, one can only give him the benefit of the doubt. However, from what you write, it seems there is some suspicion in his regard and this obliges us to make provision for the future. You say that the there is more than one victim. This needs to be checked out with great prudence, or else find a good excuse for sending Fausto away from Upton. 2.174
2.167
2.168
2.170
2.173
Concerns about this Brother are expressed in correspondence from the mid-1930s to the mid-1950s. It seems clear that there was grave suspicion about his conduct. The evidence of Br Alfonso and Fr Giovani put the position beyond doubt, and reveals the full meaning of the earlier written statements.
Latin for in a class of its own.
39
39
The failure to express these concerns clearly indicated a degree of concern on the part of the authorities that no information should escape on this issue, as it was seen to be potentially damaging. Such secrecy resulted in the serious consequence that there was reduced consciousness about the problem. The interest of the Order in avoiding adverse publicity was given priority over the protection of the boys. Transferring the Brother to Ferryhouse was another example of a reckless approach to child protection.
The Rome file: Br Mateo40 2.175 Br Mateo was a postulant in the Franciscan Friaries in Killarney and Louvain during the 1930s. No records exist about his departure from the Franciscans. He joined the Rosminians in the late 1930s, and made his perpetual vows in the mid-1940s. He was sent to Upton for just over a year in the mid-1940s, and he then went to Omeath for almost 15 years, before returning to Upton in the late 1950s. This is another Brother who was discovered by Br Alfonso to have been sexually abusing children in Upton. The matter is referred to in a letter in the late 1950s from the Provincial, Fr Placido, to the Superior General, Fr Lucca, without mentioning Br Alfonsos involvement: Bro Mateo here has recently been indiscreet cum puero41 or perhaps cum pueris42 so Fr R deems it advisable that he should be changed to avoid danger or talk especially in view of the big influx. We thought first of sending him to Kilmurry but the Rector put forward good reasons against that apart from the fact that the place would be unsuitable for the brothers health in view of the insomnia from which he suffers. We are of the opinion that Omeath would be the better place where he had been previously ... and there was no complaint about him as regards conduct ... Bro Mateo should be satisfactory ... and I think his slip will be a lesson to him to be careful and watchful ... 2.177 Fr Placido wrote again, expressing his relief at having received a reply to his previous letter, which he feared had gone astray, a matter which would have concerned him greatly as it contained references to matters about Br Mateo which he did not wish to become widely known. In the same letter he stated: I dont think we need worry about Bro Mateo at Omeath as he has got a warning and the Rector will be vigilant. There wasnt much of a serious nature against him si dice.43 2.178 A complainant from the late 1950s gave evidence that corroborated Br Alfonso. He alleged he was sexually assaulted by Br Mateo in his early days in the School. He recalled he was playing ball one evening and the ball went into the hall. Br Mateo found the ball and called the complainant over and sat him on his knee and fondled his privates and kissed him. This abuse went on over a period of time until it was eventually reported to Br Alfonso. He did not officially report it to Br Alfonso. What actually happened was that Br Alfonso found him coming out of the hall one night when he had been missing from the games room. He was initially frightened to tell Br Alfonso what was happening but eventually he did, and he was told to go and wait for Br Alfonso in the office. Some time later, Br Alfonso came back and questioned him further, and he gave all the details and was told not to worry any more as Br Mateo would be transferred. During the hearing into this evidence, counsel for the Rosminians intervened and said that they accepted that it had happened as described.
40 41 42 43
2.176
This is a pseudonym. Latin for with a boy. Latin for with boys. Latin for As spoken.
40
2.179
No steps were taken to dismiss this Brother, but he was transferred to another school where it was believed that he would be less of a danger. The Provincial was complacent and did not regard what the Brother had been doing as being extremely serious, referring to it as a slip.
The Rome file: Br Mario44 2.180 Br Marios parents died when he was young, and he was raised by the Rosminians at Upton. He took his perpetual vows three years later. In the mid-1950s, he was transferred to Upton and appointed to an administrative role. In the early 1960s, he was sent to Ferryhouse where he was appointed as an assistant to the Rector. He was discovered by Br Alfonso to have been sexually abusing boys during his posting in Ferryhouse, where he had been transferred following his term in Upton. A letter from the Provincial to the Superior General in the mid-1960s reported the discovery, and stated that the Brother had been transferred to Kilmurry for the time being. The letter said: that there were two members of his community who had been rather indiscreet with the boys and owing to some talk there and admiratio45 he wished to have the two changed sine mora.46 One was Br Mario47 ... and went to Clonmel [Ferryhouse] at the request of Fr Alanzo ... He admitted his faults and went to Kilmurry on 19th pro tem and about the middle of January Fr Pietro48 will find suitable work for him in the office there at Drumcondra and so will accept him with the debite cautele49 ... You will fully appreciate in such circumstances how instant action is often necessary and the changes made are a cover up in some respects. 2.182 He wrote again, a month later, stating that: I hope you got two previous letters I sent ... the second one was about the changes of the brothers I was compelled to make owing to two who failed in fidelity to the sacredness of their work amongst the boys. 2.183 Fr Lucca replied a few days later. He wrote: The distressing news ... shows that the Rector is very attentive and decisive. I approve the changes you had to make and I hope that the guilty ones are convinced of the serious wrong they have done and are repentant. All this causes me great sadness especially [when I consider] the elder of the two. We really must work out our salvation in fear and trembling. I am well aware of the Brothers whom you have had to change in these painful circumstances and I pray that the Lord will help them in their new positions ... I am sorry for you too who have had to make all these urgent and painful changes. Let us pray the Lord that nothing else of the like will occur. 2.184 Br Mario was transferred to a Rosminian School for the Blind, where he remained until his death over 10 years later. Transferring a Brother with this history of sexual abuse to a school for blind children was reckless and inexplicable.
44 45 46 47 48 49
2.181
2.185
This is a pseudonym. Latin for curiosity, astonishment, surprise. Latin for without delay. This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym. Latin for due caution.
41
2.186
A complainant, who was in Upton from the late 1950s to the early 1960s, made a complaint about Br Mario. He alleged that Br Mario pinned him up against a table in the kitchen, and the complainant said he was conscious of Br Marios arousal. This happened on a number of occasions and only ceased when the complainant threatened to tell Fr Eduardo, the Resident Manager: That man annoyed me week in week out for four or five weeks, commencing when I was working in the kitchen. Now, he knew I wanted to go on holidays, that man used to have me in tears. He would come up behind my back when I would be scrubbing pots, and I mean scrubbing pots now, and he would put his arms around me and he would be saying to me I don't know will I let you go on holidays or not. He used to force me up against the sink. Believe me he used to have an erection on him. This was going on for weeks ... He used to annoy me every day of the week for weeks until I threatened to tell Fr Eduardo on him. I told him to do what he wanted. I got the holidays anyway. When I threatened him with Fr Eduardo he didn't come near me any more.
2.187
The question arises why this Brother was not removed, or even given a formal Canonical Warning. The Provincial expressly acknowledged the main purpose of transferring Brothers who had been abusing when he said the changes made are a cover up in some respects. The Rome file: Br Gilberto50
2.188
Br Gilberto joined the Rosminian Order in the early 1940s, and he took his perpetual vows in the mid-1940s. He was in Ferryhouse in the mid-1940s for 10 months and again in the early 1950s. He was sent to Upton in the mid-1950s in an administrative role. His personnel card recorded that he was moved from Upton to Kilmurry before the end of the year in which he moved to Upton. The words during year follow but are crossed out, and the words left on this date: and later was dispensed from vows inserted. His service in Upton, accordingly, was very short, extending from his transfer there, which in the normal way would have happened in September. This Brother was another alleged sexual abuser who was reported by Br Alfonso. The actual reason for his sudden removal from Upton and his quitting the Order was made perfectly clear by the evidence of Br Alfonso to the Investigation Committee. The reasons for his departure can be further deduced from a letter by the Superior General, Fr Montes to Fr Orsino, the Provincial in Ireland, although the details are obscured by circumlocutions: As regards the latest painful news of Gilberto, keeping precedents in mind and his own spontaneous remark dating from last Spring about leaving the Institute, I now think that the best advice to offer him is to ask for a dispensation. He must realise that, after what has happened at Upton, he can no longer enjoy the confidence of Superiors and could not be happy in the Institute. If he agrees to what is suggested, tell him to write his petition on a large size sheet, as big at least as the one I am writing on, and to say that he is asking for a dispensation because he feels himself unequal to the obligations of a religious.
2.189
2.190
2.191
It seems that the Brother was induced to apply for his dispensation, and the request was in fact granted, but the Superior General was unhappy about the form of the request from Br Gilberto, and he gave advice to the Provincial about how to deal with cases like these: He [Br Gilberto] included a petition for dispensation that is worthless because he concludes saying that he is seeking it because I have been requested to do so. His complaint is: I have been condemned without being informed of the nature of the charge against me. Nor have I been called upon to state my case.
50
42
2.192
Fr Montes went on to give advice about procedure in cases like these: Even though the situation was difficult and dangerous, Fr Fabiano should have spoken with Gilberto before sending him to Kilmurry. He could have told him it was in his best interests to be sent away from Upton for the time being in order to put an end to gossip. I feel for Fr Fabiano because he was in a delicate situation, but experience has taught me in cases like these one has to let the person accused have his say. Otherwise, he will always be able to argue that he was condemned without being given the opportunity to defend himself.
2.193
There is a lack of explicit detail in the correspondence. Because the issue of sexual abuse was a sensitive one, the Rosminians developed a means of discussing it that obscured the facts in vague and coded language. The reason why an abuser left one institution and went to another was concealed. Such secrecy not only lessened the likelihood of the reporting and discovery of any further abuse in the new setting, but also reduced the awareness of sexual abuse as a major issue among the Community as a whole. The safety of boys in Upton, where this Brother had so recently served prior to his being discovered, were entirely ignored. Even though the petition for dispensation in this case was considered worthless, the authorities were nevertheless in a position to achieve the desired outcome of the quiet departure of the offender from the Order. It would appear that no investigation took place as to how many children might have been abused or how they might have been affected.
Conclusions on the Rome files 2.194
The contents of the Rome files illustrates the importance of good archives. Not merely did the files help to establish, through contemporary documents, the extent of sexual abuse, they also afforded corroboration of many of the allegations made by complainants. From the Rome files, the Committee also learned about attitudes to the sexual abuse of children at that time, and how known abusers were dealt with by the Order. They proved invaluable sources of information. An institution without good records is one without a memory. It cannot learn from the past, so the management has to deal with each case of abuse as a new problem. Failure to keep records increases the risk of more children being abused, and of the discovery of abuse being mismanaged.
Respondent evidence
2.195 Three members of the Order gave evidence. Two of these denied any knowledge of sexual abuse as an issue in Upton. The remaining individual, Br Alfonso, gave detailed information about sexual abuse that he had discovered and the action he had taken on foot of those discoveries while he was Prefect in Upton and Ferryhouse between the early 1950s and early 1970s. Br Alfonso said that, when he was Prefect, he was responsible for identifying to his Superiors seven sexual abusers operating in Upton. He confirmed they were as follows: Br Fausto; Br Constantin; A named night watchman; An unnamed lay teacher; Br Mateo; Br Mario, Br Gilberto. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 43
2.196
2.197 2.198
He said that all of these individuals were removed from the School. Br Alfonso said he reported these individuals to his then Superiors, Fr Fabiano and Fr Alanzo. Fr Orsino, Provincial of the Order, was also involved in the reporting of one of these individuals. He said that, when he reported these people, he was never given any indication about whether they had any previous history of abuse: These things were not tossed around among the Superiors nor were they ever mentioned at a table at any time, they were always kept secret.
2.199
Despite the number of individuals who were found to be sexually abusing children in Upton, Br Alfonso told the Committee that there was never any instruction given to watch out for possible abuse and abusers, nor were there guidelines on how to deal with such activities. What seems clear is that, following his discovery of some sexual abusers in Upton, Br Alfonso went on a crusade to purge immorality amongst the boys themselves. His evidence suggests that, once he revealed the identity of the abusers amongst staff members, the opportunity was afforded to boys to come forward and to tell him if they were being abused by fellow pupils. This version of events is in stark contrast with the evidence from witnesses, some of whom describe being falsely accused of scamping, a term used in the School to describe masturbation. One witness recalled an incident when another pupil received a postal order. The boy was showing the postal order to the complainant and had his arm around his waist. Br Donato came along and accused them of interfering with each other. They were taken into the washroom and told to take off their pants. They were then told to hug each other, while Br Donato leathered the two of them. This went on for about an hour, until a Brother came along and they were sent off. Another witness recalled that Br Alfonso and Br Donato were totally obsessed with sex and the boys. They were super-vigilant and constantly accused him of masturbation and other sexual activity. He alleged that he was often beaten for the entire day, as the Brothers took turns to extract a confession of masturbation from him. He also alleges that the Brothers beat a confession from another boy who lied and gave his name up to the Brothers. The name he gave appears in the punishment book. He described how these two Brothers had regular purges, and the boys called them hobbles. During the cross-examination of Br Alfonso, it was suggested to him that the punishment book could be divided into two sections. As was discussed above, the first period of the book is from 1952 to 1954. The second period from 1954 to 1963 showed a marked difference in the type of offence being punished, in that the almost exclusive reason for punishment was immorality. He was asked to explain this shift in emphasis of punishment, and he failed to give a precise answer. His counsel attempted to explain what Br Alfonso was saying: By his actions in reporting the activities of the community and the lay person, he brought a situation out into the open where the boys were now more comfortable coming forward. So the boys who had been allegedly victims of each other were now coming to Br Alfonso to report incidents between themselves as opposed to between themselves and the community. So that those things had now become more open, there was an atmosphere of honesty coming out that these things were no longer taboo, that there was a way to get some action.
2.200
2.201
2.202
2.203 2.204
2.205
Br Alfonso also said that the reason why there was so much punishment for immorality in the punishment book during his time was due to an increasing awareness that sexual behaviour was unacceptable. He said: 44 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
All I was saying is that somehow or another it must have in some way leaked out to the children that this is not acceptable, this standard. I think my attorney here spelt that out, that the boys realised that and then started to come to me and say, this is what is going on here with us, these boys are molesting and will you stand up for us. If that makes sense, I dont know, but I cannot explain it any other way. 2.206 Br Alfonso gave evidence that the punishment that was administered was normally three or four slaps on the hand, or 10 strokes on the seat of the pants for more serious offences. The punishment book recorded that 20 strokes were administered to a boy for sexual impropriety and, on other occasions, 15 strokes were administered. When asked to explain why he said 10 was the maximum delivered, which was clearly incorrect, Br Alfonso explained that the severity of that particular punishment arose from a highly unusual situation. He said: I am saying that in these events we are talking about, boys wouldnt be one on one in this situation. They would be like animals among one another, everybody would be involved in it, young boys and all. It was having whatever, I dont know what you would like to call it, an orgy, I dont know what it would be. Certainly it wasnt a normal one to one thing. That is all I can say.
Complainant evidence
2.207 The evidence of complainants who made allegations against documented abusers has already been set out. In addition, further credible evidence of abuse was given. One witness who was resident in the 1950s alleged that he was sexually abused in the tailor shop. The routine was normally that a boy would arrive in the tailor shop, and whatever item of clothing that required repair would be repaired on the spot. On this occasion, he was told by a lay worker to remove his trousers for repair. The lay worker then put him on his knee, on the pretext of showing him how the sewing machine worked. He sexually abused him, and he and the lay worker ended up on the floor. This only happened on one occasion, as the person normally in charge of the shop was absent. He did not report this incident, as he was too frightened. Another resident, present in the 1960s, alleged that he had been raped while he was a pupil in Upton. He stated that he awoke on a number of occasions to find a dark figure groping him. He stated that, on one occasion, a lay member of staff persuaded him to accompany him to the kitchen for the purpose of giving him cookies and milk. While in the kitchen, the man pushed up against him and attempted to lift him up. However, the witness stated that he froze and the lay worker got a fright and stopped. However, he was told to go straight to bed and not to say anything. Another complainant, present in the mid to late 1960s, said that he was sexually abused by a man named Mr Vance51 who came into the School and would take the boys out for a walk. He would attempt to fondle him when they were out for the walks. He says he fought off his advances.
2.208
2.209
2.210
The statement of Fr Giovani

2.211 Although he was not called to give evidence, the Committee were able to consider a statement made by Fr Giovani, who was Prefect in Upton during the mid-1950s. Fr Giovani stated that one of the most distressing memories he had of Upton was when he and Br Alfonso discovered that one of the primary teachers had been sexually abusing the boys. He stated that Br Alfonso immediately reported the matter to the Resident Manager, and the teacher was dismissed. He also stated that he and Br Alfonso discovered two members of the Community,
51
2.212
45
Brs Fausto and Constantin, engaged in similar activities. Again, Br Alfonso reported the matter to the Resident Manager, and the offenders were removed from the School.
The Institute of Charity internal survey

2.213 One section of the internal survey conducted by the Institute of Charity related to allegations of sexual abuse in Upton. Br Tomasso said that, as a student residing in Upton in the 1950s, he had been told that Br Constantin had been removed for interfering with the boys. He had also heard that Br Fausto was engaged in similar activities. Fr Stefano said that he had heard from Br Romano52 that Mr Vance had been interfering with the boys. One respondent to the survey stated that, in the mid-1950s, a teacher had been fired for abusing boys behind the blackboard. He also stated that this individual had found employment in a local school a week later.
2.214
2.215
Conclusions on sexual abuse

2.216 1. it is impossible to quantify the full extent of sexual abuse by religious and lay staff in Upton. The documented cases disclose that it was widespread and it is very likely that more abuse happened than was recorded. 2. Sexual abuse by religious was a chronic problem: a timeline of documented and admitted cases of sexual abuse shows that a. For more than half the relevant period, there was at least one abuser working there; b. For more than one third of the period, there were at least two abusers present; c. For periods of years in the 1950s, there were at least three abusers present; d. In the course of two separate years, there were at least four abusers present in Upton at the same time. 3. The succession of cases that confronted the authorities must have alerted them to the scale of the problem, and to the need for a thorough ongoing investigation as to how deep the problem went among the Brothers and staff in Upton. Such an investigation did not happen. Instead, each case was dealt with individually, as if no other case had occurred. 4. Br Alfonso brought about the exposure of a large number of sexual abusers, and gave rise to the question whether any of them would have been discovered if he had not been there. 5. The question in this Institution arises, as it does in many others, as to whether the discovery of a large number of abusers represented a period that was a bad time for abuse or a good time for the discovery of abuse. 6. Transferring abusers to other institutions where they would be in contact with children put those children at risk. 7. The Order was aware of the criminal nature of the conduct, but did not report it as a crime. 8. Sexual abuse was dealt with in a manner that put the interests of the Order, the Institution and even the abuser ahead of the protection of the children. 9. The Order did not expel members for sexual abuse. 10. The extent and prevalence of the problem were not addressed.
52
46
Sexual activity amongst the boys: documented cases

A case from 1936 which led to a Special Inspection of Upton by the Department of Education
2.217 The issue of sexual activity amongst boys in Upton came to the attention of the Department of Education in 1936, when it was notified by the Attorney Generals office about criminal cases that had come before Cork Circuit Court, involving former residents of both Greenmount and Upton Industrial Schools. The facts were that two former pupils of Upton, aged 19 and 16 years respectively, were convicted of crimes including attempted buggery, gross indecency and indecent assault. The boys were sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. The Attorney General was the prosecuting authority at the time, and he felt it necessary to notify the Department because the defendants in their court depositions dated their original misconduct to a time when they were detained in the Industrial Schools .... Prosecuting counsel reported to the Attorney General that: The revelations about Upton and Greenmount, at this sittings have given me furiously to think about Industrial Schools and Religious Orders ... 2.219 The Attorney Generals office wrote a carefully phrased letter to the Minister for Education, not making reference to the charges or other sexual activity, but simply referring to misconduct and respectfully suggesting that the Department should take some form of intervention: The Attorney General is slow to draw unfavourable general conclusions from these cases, and he transmits the information merely in the hope that the Minister in collaboration with the School Authorities may be able to devise some means of keeping the number of such cases in future at the lowest possible level. 2.220 The letter went on to suggest a remedy: The Minister may take the view, which would be shared by the Attorney General, that a closer supervision of the older boys would be calculated to discourage the formation of these unfortunate habits. 2.221 It nevertheless acknowledged the problem for school authorities: The Attorney General is fully alive to the great difficulty experienced by the school authorities in eliminating as far as possible these particular tendencies on the part of the older boys. 2.222 The Minister for Education directed his Department officials to conduct a special inspection of both Greenmount and Upton, with particular emphasis on the supervision methods employed at both schools. This special inspection took place on 1st and 2nd December 1936 and was conducted by two officials of the Department, namely the Inspector of Industrial Schools and the Deputy Chief Inspector of the Primary Branch. The Minister considered that, as the matter was very grave, the services of a very experienced inspector from the Primary School Branch were required to assist the Industrial Schools Inspector, hence the appointment of the Deputy Chief Inspector of the Primary Branch. The internal Departmental memoranda made it clear that their brief was only to inspect the supervision practices at both schools, because: ... their visit is really one of inspection rather than enquiry but they should if necessary impress on the manager of the two schools the gravity of the recent cases, the need for stricter supervision etc. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 47
2.218
2.223
The only other guidance provided to the two Inspectors, regarding the inspection of supervision at these two schools, was that they should ascertain the measures taken to prevent or put an end to the occurrences which gave rise to the recent cases before the Cork Courts. The Inspectors submitted their report to the Assistant Secretary of the Department on 14th December 1936. In it, they noted that the supervision exercised in both schools is adequate in ordinary circumstances and the recent occurrences will tend to keep the school authorities on the alert. However, the Inspectors gave it as their opinion that there was always a danger of sexual activity occurring between boys, which could be increased in particular circumstances: there is an ever present danger of these cases arising no matter how well planned the supervision and the danger is aggravated when, as in the case of Greenmount, a member of the staff is known to have been implicated.
2.224
2.225
The Inspectors particularly stressed the need for supervision of the older boys: The problem, as we understand it, is for obvious reasons a most difficult one to deal with and we consider the only action that can be taken is to impress on the Manager (verbally for preference) of each boys school the possibility of such cases occurring and the necessity for close and constant supervision of the boys, especially the senior boys i.e. boys over 14 years of age, in all their activities.
2.226
The Inspectors noted that members of the Community were always present during boys recreation and free time. In addition, a Rosminian priest or Brother slept in each of the dormitories, and the Superior made visits to the dormitories. Furthermore, the Resident Manager had prevailed upon the senior boys who were destined for the Novitiate, unbeknownst to each other, to report to him doubtful conduct among the boys, in an attempt to prevent such activity occurring. The Department informed the Attorney Generals office on 30th December 1936 of the outcome of the special investigation, and that the Minister for Education was satisfied that everything possible is now being done to stamp out and to prevent a re-currence of the practices referred to in the cases in question. The letter added that the Minister also approved of a suggestion that the Inspector of Industrial Schools should impress upon managers of Boys Schools the danger of such practices existing and the importance of continual and close supervision of the senior boys. The importance of the court cases was clear to the Upton authorities and beyond. Writing to Fr Orsino in Rome on 20th October 1936 about his brother, Fr Giuseppe, the Resident Manager, Fr Gerodi,53 described how the Manager was detained on urgent business: Fr Giuseppe was unable to be away from Upton, owing to a matter which had troubled him much for several weeks and during last week he had to be on call on the telephone ... Some ex-Upton boys got into very serious trouble, and there was very great danger that the reputation of the School would suffer.
2.227
2.228
2.229
That appeared to be the end of the matter, in the eyes of the Department, until another case involving a former Upton boy came to the attention of the Garda in Cork in 1944.
2.230
The Inspectors considered the supervision as described to them to be satisfactory, while acknowledging the difficulty of dealing with the problem, and the only step they took was verbal exhortation as to supervision. No new measures were put in place, yet the Minister was able to inform the Attorney General that he was satisfied that everything possible was now being done to deal with the problem.
53
48
The School authorities were concerned about the very great danger to the reputation of the School.
The case from 1944

2.231 Alarming evidence of more extensive sexual activity among the boys at Upton came to light in August 1944. A former resident of the School, who had been detained there from the late 1930s to the mid-1940s, was arrested and charged with larceny. The boy had been released early from Upton on licence to a farmer and was considered very troublesome. He was convicted and sentenced to two years detention in Daingean Reformatory in 1944. The boy was medically examined while he was in custody, and he was found to be suffering from venereal disease. He admitted that, while he was resident in Upton, he had engaged in anal intercourse with other boys on several occasions, and he made a statement to the Garda in which he named seven other boys with whom he had engaged in such acts, one of whom had died in the intervening period. The Garda interviewed the six boys, of whom all but two denied the allegations. In their statements, the boys who admitted such sexual activity with each other gave explicit details of the acts, which took place in a number of locations such as the kitchen attached to the infirmary, the farm, water closets, the dormitory and the infirmary. One of the boys complained in his statement that he had been anally raped on approximately 10 occasions during his time there. He said that he told one of the Brothers what this boy was doing to him but, when the matter was reported to the Resident Manager, Fr Fabiano, the latter beat him. This boy named five other boys with whom he had committed these acts. The two boys who had made admissions had been discharged from the School on the expiration of their detention orders and were residing with their parents. The prosecuting authorities decided that they, together with the first boy, who was in Daingean, should be charged, and that the remaining boys who had denied the allegations were not to be prosecuted. The authorities at the School did not relish the prospect of another trial of sex charges involving boys from Upton, and they went to work to try to prevent the prosecution going ahead. When the local State Solicitor was at the District Court in Cork, he was approached by a senior member of the Order, who pointed out to him that the offences took place a long time ago when the boys were very young. He said that the boy in Daingean was to blame for the incidents, that the other boys did not realise what they were doing and that they had been punished accordingly at the School and were now leading good lives. He specifically asked the State Solicitor that no prosecution should be taken. The Resident Manager of Upton, Fr Fabiano, followed up this representation with a letter to the State Solicitor in 1944. He stated that the School had been aware of sexual activity amongst the boys in question, and had dealt with the two boys at that time who afterwards became very good. He impressed upon the State Solicitor that no good would be derived from prosecuting the two boys who had now changed their ways and were now upright citizens. He said: We believe that we have attained our object when we make of these boys upright law abiding citizens, but it is now unjust to draw into the limelight the sins of their youth or perhaps I should say misdemeanours as they may not have been sins at all. 2.237 Fr Fabiano took a benign view: I wonder if the law in this case is being interpreted rightly or if the name attributed to the crime of adults can rightly be applied to children who often may not know that they are breaking the law of God let alone the law of the State. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 49
2.232
2.233
2.234
2.235
2.236
2.238
In praise of the children, he asserted that they are good normal children perhaps better than the average and have a right to their good name. These efforts proved successful, and the State Solicitor recommended that the three boys should not be prosecuted, and the Attorney General agreed. The reasons were, first, that the boy at the centre of the allegations was already serving a two-year sentence of detention at Daingean, and it was felt that no benefit would be derived from a further prosecution. Secondly, with regard to the other two boys, it was felt that, having considered all the circumstances of the case, no prosecutions should be taken. Each of these reasons existed at the time when the boys were charged, and the only new development was the opposition of the Upton authorities to a prosecution. There could have been strong arguments put forward for not proceeding with this prosecution, but one of the motives of the Manager appears to have been to avoid adverse publicity and very great danger to the reputation of the School. The attitude to sex between boys, that he advanced in his letter seeking to stop the case, was very different from what emerged from their attitude in other cases. An unwelcome consequence of this Garda investigation for the School management was the renewed attention of the Department of Education. The Superintendent of Bandon Garda informed the Inspector of the Department of Education in 1944 of the charges being brought against the three boys. An internal enquiry was mooted by the Department of Education, but it was decided that there was no point in writing to the Resident Manager of Upton to ask him to explain how these acts went undetected until it had been proved that they took place, i.e. until after the court cases. Such an enquiry never went ahead, presumably because there were no prosecutions. The Department was unsure as to how it should deal with the situation, but eventually decided almost two months later to write to the Resident Manager to express the Ministers grave concern at the continued prevalence of this serious vice in the School. This the Inspector of Industrial Schools duly did, by letter dated early the following year. He expressed in very strong terms his concern on behalf of the Minister of the continued prevalence of sodomy amongst the boys in Upton, and he specifically drew attention to the 1936 Special Inspection, whereby the need for tighter supervision of senior boys was stressed to the Resident Manager at the time. The letter also expressed, even more forcefully, the burden on the Minister who, as the regulator of all industrial schools, was placed in a grave predicament when these allegations of sodomy arose. In order to impress upon the Resident Manager the urgency and problem posed by sexual abuse amongst the boys, he threatened that the school certificate would be withdrawn if radical action was not taken to eradicate the problem: The danger that this is so places a burden of the gravest responsibility on the Minister, since it is by virtue of his continued recognition of the School as an industrial school that a steady stream of young boys are sent there under the Children Acts. If it should become clear that this ruinous vice has taken firm root in your school and cannot be eradicated so that boys are exposed to an abnormal degree to the danger of indulging in it, the Minister may feel bound to withdraw his recognition from the School.
2.239
2.240
2.241
2.242
2.243
He then requested the Resident Manager in the letter to take radical action immediately to stamp out this vice, by tightening up supervision and keeping surveillance of boys over the age of 14 years, with particular attention to their activities on the farm. This letter evoked a quick and indignant response from both the Resident Manager and the Provincial at Upton. The Resident Manager in his letter to the Department admitted that we do get odd cases of immorality, but I most emphatically deny that this school is the den of iniquity 50 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
2.244
implied in your letter. Fr Fabiano defended the management of the School in unequivocal terms, stating: It has always been my greatest anxiety to see that the boys are moral in every way and that they are never exposed to any risk, whatsoever, in other words as far as it is humanly possible this particular danger is guarded against. 2.245 He went on in the letter to defend the actions of the school staff in preventing such abuses taking place, stating that he had 18 years experience in the School and knew how to protect the boys morality, in addition to making frequent visits to the farm and the whole school at all sorts of odd and unusual times and having always dealt severely with anything like indecent conduct and have taken a particular interest in the boys concerned making sure they become God fearing boys. The Resident Manager ended his six-page letter with a challenging declaration: If the minister is worried about the welfare of these children and is ready to accept the evidence at its face value notwithstanding Fr Giuseppes statement to the contrary I am authorised to state that he (Fr Giuseppe) is willing to hand up the certificate in the interests and for the safety of the religious staff dealing with the school. 2.246 The Provincial, Fr Giuseppe, also wrote to the Department on the same day, expressing his outrage and annoyance, but went further and expressed his desire to resign the certificate of the School and prevailed upon the Inspector to make provision as soon as possible for the committed children at present in the care of the Fathers of Charity in this school. The fact that the Department did not take very seriously the Provincials threat to close the School can be gleaned from an internal memorandum. They considered that the decision by the Provincial was made in a fit of pique, seeing that this incident follows on the heels of the clean up at his other school, Clonmel. However, they sought to smooth the ruffled feathers of the Upton authorities by issuing a mild apology and explaining the reason behind the forceful letter that was sent. They wrote to the Provincial and offered the explanation that the Department thought that, when the two inspectors visited the School in 1936 and urged stricter supervision, that was the end of the matter of sodomy. When it came to light in 1944 that abuses had taken place over a further sevenyear period from 1938, this gave rise of grave concern and disappointment. The statements of the boys were also furnished to the Provincial, in the hope that this would clarify and explain the gravity of the situation and the response of the Department: I have no doubt that you will recognise this when you have read the statements, and that you will understand why it was considered desirable to urge you in the strongest terms to spare no efforts to stamp out this form of misconduct in your School. 2.248 It did not have the desired effect on the Resident Manager. Instead, after having read the statements of the three boys, he wrote a very defensive letter to the Inspector, dismissing his concerns outright. As to the statements of the three boys, the Manager analysed them and pointed out reasons why they should not be believed, and he referred to the difficult backgrounds from which each of them came. He certainly did not think that he was in any way to blame for the misconduct of the boys, and insisted that the acts complained of in the statements were well known to him and he had done everything in his power to be vigilant: I do not know that there is a case mentioned in any of the statements which was not either known or suspected and every vigilance was exercised. 2.249 Instead of attempting to understand or alleviate the concerns of the Department in this matter, the Resident Manager took the moral high ground and dismissed outright the stance taken by the Department: My conscience is quite clear and untroubled about the whole matter and I do not believe I could have done more. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 51
2.247
2.250
The Assistant Secretary stated in an internal memorandum in 1945 to the Secretary that the letter is reasonable enough on the whole and that he did not expect that the Resident Manager would actually resign the certificate. The course taken by the Department was simply to do nothing more about the matter and to let it all blow over. When the Medical Inspector, Dr Anna McCabe,54 carried out a routine General Inspection of the School on 19th March 1945, she had a long discussion with Fr Giuseppe about the situation and particularly his threat to resign the certificate. She considered that the threat was a bit of a bluff. The Manager informed her that he could always turn the School into a secondary boarding school. By April 1945, a reply to the Managers letter had not been issued from the Department, and they felt it was unnecessary to do so and that it was safe to assume that the Provincial will not pursue his threat to resign the Cert. of the School?.
2.251
This episode illustrates the priority given by the school authorities to avoiding adverse publicity. The Resident Manager was prepared to make light of what was considered to be the most heinous conduct that a boy could commit in Upton, in an effort to stop the prosecution and thus avoid adverse publicity or danger to the reputation of the school. The correspondence demonstrates the weakness of the Department; first it did not achieve its purpose, second to assert its entitlement to supervise this School, and third to protect vulnerable children.
Neglect and emotional abuse

2.252 The Department of Education and Science furnished, as part of the discovery process, General and Medical Inspection Reports for Upton spanning the period 1939 to 1966. Although a number of them are missing for various years, they are a valuable source of information on the conditions that prevailed in the School at the time. These documents allowed the Committee to view complainants evidence in the light of contemporary records.
Living conditions
2.253 The Departments Medical Inspector, Dr Anna McCabe, considered the School well run and the premises well kept for the most part. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, her reports reflect anticipation of improvements in general living conditions, but any such improvements occurred very slowly. A difficulty with Dr McCabes reports is the fact that no specific information is provided as to the actual condition of the School or the nature of the improvements needed. The food and clothing of the boys were the two main areas with which she was least satisfied, and these are discussed in detail in the paragraphs below. After a General Inspection of Upton on 9th June 1939, Dr McCabe was very impressed with the School. She found that the house and grounds were in good order and the boys appeared very healthy and bright and their physical condition was excellent. Apart from their outward appearance, Dr McCabe noted that the boys all appear very pleased and content, and freely talk with their Superiors. She also commented that the boys had plenty of playing space a great big cement yard and field as well as a fine Swimming Pool in the grounds. The next available record of an Inspection by Dr McCabe is a report dated 10th November 1943. On that occasion, conditions had deteriorated somewhat from 1939. Dr McCabe described the School as only fairly good but she noted that the boys were well cared and happy. The reasons for her dissatisfaction included the fact that there were dirty tablecloths on the tables in the refectory, and the towels for the boys were worn and ragged. She recommended that these be
54
2.254
2.255
Dr Anna McCabe was the Department of Education Inspector for most of the relevant period.
52
replaced. She also called for better supervision of the boys in the dressing room and for each boy to be supplied with a toothbrush. 2.256 The next available Inspection Report, two years later, reported conditions had not altered. In her report dated 19th March 1945, Dr McCabe again described the School as only fairly good and the premises as being fairly well kept. But she did not elaborate on what needed to be done to improve conditions. She commented that improvements were being made to the School, but did not specify what the improvements were, except to say that a new kitchen was being built. Again, she found that the boys were well cared and happy. On the next General Inspection, which took place on 2nd September 1946, she found the School was much improved. Dr McCabe noted that the new kitchen was a great success and a new sanitary annexe had been added. Of even greater importance was the fact that a bungalow had been built on the grounds of the School, for the purpose of housing six nuns who were due to arrive to assist in the running of the School. Their presence, according to Dr McCabe, would bring about great changes for the best. These nuns were from the Dominican Order and arrived in Upton in October 1946. When Dr McCabe visited the School on 27th October 1947 she found altogether there is a great improvement in this school which was due in no small measure to the arrival of the Dominican nuns. She declared that the advent of the Nuns has made a great difference to the school. In particular, she felt that the nuns had brought about much improvement on the domestic side of the house. In 1948, she noted the same improvements, again because of the nuns. In her report dated 22nd October 1948, Dr McCabe detailed that the corridors and dormitories had been repainted and the premises were clean and well kept. There are no Inspection Reports for the years 1949, 1950 and 1951. The next available Inspection Report is dated 21st May 1952. On that occasion, Dr McCabe again praised the nuns for bringing about great changes in the dormitories and kitchens, and found that the School was altogether much improved and the painting of the entire house was being undertaken at the time. Dr McCabe made similar comments when she visited on 17th December 1954. She remarked that the school continues to improve, particularly in the area of clothing and food. From 1947 to 1954, Dr McCabe consistently remarked on the great positive changes which had taken place at the School by the arrival of the Dominican nuns in 1946. The precise changes cannot be gleaned from her reports. However, by 1955 the nuns had to leave Upton due to staff shortages in the Dominican houses. Dr McCabe lamented the departure of the nuns in her Inspection Report of 11th November 1955 where she stated: School has improved Unfortunately now that the Nuns have departed I wonder if this happy state of affairs will continue. 2.261 Despite the departure of the nuns, the School conditions had not deteriorated, as was evidenced by Dr McCabe in her General Inspection Report of 29th November 1956. She still considered that the School had much improved and there was a Nice Spirit prevailing. Dr McCabes Inspection Reports from 1958 to 1964 repeatedly record her anticipation of conditions improving in the School. Throughout those years, she consistently stated that improvements have been made and continue to be made, but very little information was provided as to the exact nature of these improvements except to say that they were occurring slowly. In 1958, Dr McCabe remarked in her report that the Resident Manager is investigating the central heating. It took another four years before central heating was installed in the School. During those years, Dr McCabe consistently described the School as well run and the boys well cared. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 53
2.257
2.258
2.259
2.260
2.262
2.263
In 1961, with the appointment of a new Resident Manager, Fr Eduardo, Dr McCabe was positively hopeful that he would bring about greater improvements, which up to that time had been occurring slowly. She wrote, Now with Fr Eduardo in charge I expect to see great works. Dr McCabes last inspection was carried out on 12th May 1964. On that occasion, the Resident Manager, Fr Eduardo, came in for particular praise by her: Fr Eduardo deserves the greatest praise for the work he has done since his appointment. He has redecorated all the school inside and outside and its appearance is much better and brighter. Great improvements everywhere.
2.264
2.265
Every area of the School on that occasion was referred to as being very good, including the food and diet of the boys, which had been an ongoing issue for the Medical Inspector for a number of years. Even the clothing on that occasion was described as much better. Her view, however, was contradicted by the Lord Mayor of Cork, who visited Upton in January 1965 with a number of students. His report gave a very different account of life at the School. Each week, a number of students from Cork visited Upton to help brighten the lives of the boys. On one of these visits, the Lord Mayor was invited to join them, which he did on 26th January 1965. Whilst there, he admitted to taking an unofficial tour of the buildings and he arrived in the dining room while the boys were preparing for tea. The scene that greeted him came as quite a shock. He went so far as to say that: The conditions I saw would not be tolerated in a workhouse of by-gone days.
2.266
2.267
The conditions in the dining room, which came as such a shock to the Lord Mayor, were the battered tin plates and cups from which the boys ate and drank, the dirty tables stacked high with piles of bread, and the lack of knives and forks. One Brother and a woman did the entire cooking for 130 boys. He was also critical of the boys dormitories, where he found some eighty beds all closely packed together. Apart from the lack of privacy, he found that the pillows were hard as if made of straw and there didnt appear to be any sheets. He commented: It is bad enough to see delinquents subjected to these conditions but orphans who are there through no fault of their own should surely deserve more humane treatment.
2.268
2.269
The only positive remark he had to make was in respect of the recreational facilities, but felt that surely essentials should come first. He concluded from what he saw that: It is hard to visualise any of these lads adapting themselves to conditions in the outside world after their years in Upton.
2.270
This report reached the Department of Education and it prompted them to dispatch a senior officer, Mr McDevitt, to inspect the School on 4th and 5th March 1965. In his report following his inspection, Mr McDevitt found the school generally very much improved. He commented on each of the complaints raised by the Lord Mayor. First, he reported that each boy received a fork and spoon, but confirmed there was a shortage of knives, with only 30 in existence, which resulted in two knives being supplied to each table of eight boys. He noted that the Brother in charge of the kitchen complained of the shortage of knives. Secondly, he disagreed that the boys used tin cups, stating that the tableware was aluminium, which had been purchased in the interests of hygiene, as the Department of Health had issued a warning on the dangers of eating from chipped or cracked delph. Previously, according to the report, delph cups were used in the School. He did, however, concede that, owing to constant wear and tear, the aluminium plates and cups had become battered and needed to be replaced. Thirdly, he reported that the 54 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
2.271
dining hall was adequately heated, that tablecloths were not used in any industrial school, and the tables were newly topped with formica. Fourthly, he found that the kitchen was adequate, with first-class equipment, but it was supervised by a Brother who has had a nervous breakdown and seems rather neurotic. 2.272 Mr McDevitt was of the view that the dormitories were highly satisfactory. He added that there were two sheets to every bed and a blanket underneath, and that the pillows were stuffed with either feathers or fibre. He concluded that the School has improved immensely. In support of this conclusion, he cited figures provided to him by the Brothers that 32,000 had been spent: on renovating the toilets, play hall and T.V. room; on the central heating; and in extending the dormitories and shower rooms. That appears to have been the end of the matter. At the Phase I hearing, Fr OReilly, when questioned about the Lord Mayors report, conceded that a lot of his comments would have to be accepted. But he added that: ... a lot of it depended really on what a persons background was. If [he] had extensive experience in other places where the standards were entirely different obviously then his criticisms were justified. But if the Inspector had a different standard then that told its own story obviously. 2.274 The final General Inspection of Upton took place on 15th June 1966, shortly before its closure, by Dr Lysaght. He provided a very detailed and lengthy report on the School. His overall observations of the School were good. He found that the premises for the most part were in a reasonable state of repair but the roof in the recreation hall was leaking. He was critical of the lack of wardrobes and lockers available in the boys dormitories, which he viewed as a necessity. The mattresses on the beds he felt could be replaced, as wire meshing and film were outdated. His report noted that there was a modern bathroom in place, fitted with communal showers. Dr Lysaght noted that the Resident Manager gave sex education classes to the boys. Dr Lysaght was very impressed by Fr Eduardo, the Resident Manager, as he came across as someone very interested in his work and devoted to the boys welfare and sorry at the prospect of the school closing down.
2.273
Food
2.275 The Rosminians concede that boys were hungry in Upton. Fr OReilly, at the Phase III public hearing, said, I absolutely accept that children were hungry .... Dr McCabes reports were not of great assistance, because she describes the food in very general terms as being satisfactory or could be improved. Nevertheless, she repeatedly recommended to the Brother in charge of the kitchen to vary the diet. Dr McCabe, in her report dated 21st June 1939, summed up the boys food as good in quantity, quality and variety. Thereafter, in the 1940s it appears to have deteriorated, as Dr McCabe described it as fairly satisfactory or satisfactory. No precise details of the quality, quantity or type of food provided can be elicited from these reports. A number of reports are missing for the 1940s and early 1950s. The reports of 1943 and 1945 characterised the food as fairly satisfactory. In 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1952, Dr McCabe described the food as satisfactory. There are no Inspection Reports from 1949 to 1951. When Dr McCabe visited the School on 27th November 1953, she commented that the food was much better. Between 1953 and 1962, her reports regularly described the food as improved, although it is not clear what it had improved from or what it was actually like. Her report of 1955 categorised the food as very good. But, by the following year, problems had arisen again with the food, as her report of 29th November 1956 asserted that the food could be improved. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 55
2.276
2.277
2.278
2.279
Dr McCabes report of 1956 gives some indication of the problem regarding the food, namely that not enough food was being given. In particular, she was critical of the insufficient quantities of meat and milk provided for the boys. At the time, only 15lbs of meat per meal was provided for 180 boys, and she recommended to the Brother in charge that this should be increased to between 30lbs and 45lbs. She also recommended that each boy should be given one pint of milk per day. In addition, she suggested that honey or golden syrup and vitaminised margarine should be supplied at lunchtime. In 1957, when Dr McCabe called on the School on 1st November, she again reported that the food could be improved but added that it was on the whole not too bad. From her 1957 report, no information can be gleaned as to what the nature of the problem with the food was or how it could be improved. Unlike her report in 1956, she provided no recommendations to improve the food. Neither did she report whether her 1956 recommendation had been implemented. Former residents of Upton complained that they were constantly hungry and that the food provided was of poor quality. One witness, who had been resident in Upton throughout the 1950s, complained that he was always hungry while he was in the School. His hunger was such that he had to resort to eating the slops and leftovers from the priests kitchen. In evidence, he recounted this vivid memory of watching and waiting for his own brother, who worked in the priests kitchen, to bring the slop from the kitchen to a pit so that he and his friends could eat from it. He said: He used to take the slop from the kitchen, he used to take it down to this pit. It was quite a way away from the house. I used to watch him. I used to see him take the food down to this pit, apple skins and bits and pieces. When he left I used to go down there with my little team and we used to go eat all the apple skins.
2.280
2.281
2.282
A witness from the mid-1950s described the food as absolutely terrible and insufficient in quantity, particularly for boys who had to do heavy farm work: The food was absolutely terrible; a starvation diet is all I can say it was, everything was rationed. We were expected to work, do mens work on that kind of food.
2.283
He said that breakfast consisted of bread and dripping, with porridge on some mornings, but no milk. Bread with margarine was provided for supper, and the dinner he described as pea soup, which had the consistency of gruel. Another witness, who had been in the School for a short period of time in the late 1950s, stated that the boys were starved in Upton, and the situation was one of a total lack of food. The issue of lack of meat for the boys was also attested to by another witness. He remembered each week that two sheep were killed on the farm, but the meat from the sheep was not given to the boys. His only recollection of meat was of black pudding and sausages, in a stew with potatoes for dinner. But, as regards other forms of meat, he stated adamantly that they never got any: Meat, you would never see meat. You might get a chunk of fat now and again but you would never see meat even though I was there and I knew it was there. The boys never got any of it.
2.284
2.285
2.286
This witness who worked in the kitchen peeling potatoes saw a distinct difference in the food provided for the priests and the boys: there was food for the clergy and food for the boys. Fr OReilly at the Phase III public hearing, conceded that the Brothers received better quality food than the children: I accept that the food was so much better for the people who lived and worked in the place, yes. I would say it was a better quality of food. 56 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
2.287
2.288
In 1958, Dr McCabe noted that the food for the boys had improved but, at the same time, she felt that more could be done as she had a talk with the Br in charge and advised several improvements I thought could be made. Again, there are no details provided as to what was needed to be done to ameliorate the food situation. A complaint about the food was made in May 1959, when fathers of two boys who had been transferred from Greenmount Industrial School to Upton complained to their local TD about the poor conditions prevailing in Upton, and he forwarded their complaints to the Minister for Education, Mr Jack Lynch. One of the complaints was that the boys only got three slices of bread with dripping for their tea each day, compared to Greenmount where they received bread and jam each evening and two ounces of cheese four nights of the week (other complaints were made about punishment). He felt compelled as their local TD to forward the complaints on to the Department of Education, but he did not think there was much merit to the complaints, as he qualified his letter by saying that much of what they said was hearsay and that, having questioned them very closely on some of the information, he had formed the view that some of it is obviously exaggerated to say the least of it. The Department of Education forwarded the letter of complaint to the Resident Manager, Fr Alanzo, for comment. He replied in a letter dated 3rd June 1959, stoutly defending the food provided in Upton: All I can say is St. Patricks was always outstanding and still is regarding feeding the boys well. Our friends ... did not say that our boys get sausages and eggs Sunday mornings, which they never got in Greenmount. Our boys are the admiration of all visitors, because they look so healthy. Hungry children do not look healthy.
2.289
2.290
2.291
He did not take the complaints very seriously as he considered them to be 100% exaggerated. Nor was the complaint taken very seriously at Department level. Dr McCabe, whose opinion was sought on the issue, dismissed the complaint outright. Her views about the complaints are contained in an internal Departmental note dated 11th June 1959, as follows: The boys in this school are very well fed and cared. I have no comments to make on this letter as I consider it is a grouse.
2.292
One witness was questioned about receiving sausages and eggs as contended by the Resident Manager in 1959, and had the following to say: Well, it sounds as if they owe me a few breakfasts by the sounds of it. There is just no answer to that. Thats just a joke. I wouldnt know a sausage down there if I tripped over one. Thats just not the case.
2.293
When Dr McCabe inspected the School on 17th December 1959, she commented in her General Inspection Report that the quality and quantity of the food had improved. Despite this improvement, she still felt it necessary to make further recommendations to the Brother in charge of the kitchen to vary the diet. Again, the exact nature of the problem with the food was not specified. Dr McCabe called to the School on 13th August 1960, and yet again she discussed the need for improvement with the Brother in charge of the kitchen, particularly with regard to various methods of varying meals, and in this she found him most co-operative. In her 1961 report, Dr McCabe, whilst commenting that the food and diet had improved, remarked that she had discussed problem of food with Br in charge and he hopes to make further improvements. In 1962, the food was said to have improved. By 1963 and 1964, it was good. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 57
2.294
2.295
As discussed above, the Lord Mayors criticisms in January 1965 led to an inspection by the Departments Inspector, Mr McDevitt on 4th and 5th March 1965. The Mayor had not made any criticism of the food, but Mr McDevitt investigated that matter and uncovered a problem with the kitchen and the diet. The source of the problem, as he saw it, lay with the neurotic Brother who was in charge of the kitchen. When questioned about the food by Mr McDevitt, this Brother replied that the diet was highly satisfactory except that the milk and cake rations were inadequate. He was also questioned about supplying margarine rather than butter to the boys, and his reply was that margarine was more nutritious. Mr McDevitt summed up this Brother as the problem child of the community and as the likely original source of the complaints made to the Minister. When he mentioned this Brother to other members of the Rosminian Community, they replied with either a smile or an expression of sympathy for his nervous condition. Yet this Brother was in charge of supplying the daily nutritional requirements for all the boys. Overall, Mr McDevitt did not give much credence to the Lord Mayors complaints, and the root of the problem, as he saw it, lay with the Brother in charge of the kitchen. From the documents furnished, no action was taken on foot of the report with regard to this Brother. The final General Inspection of Upton took place on 15th June 1966 by Dr Lysaght. He reported in detail on the food and diet of the boys and listed the four meals a day which they received and enclosed a sample food menu. He commented that the boys get all the milk they want at dinner or any other meal. However, he noted that the Resident Manager, Fr Eduardo was not altogether satisfied with the meals which he felt could be improved with better culinary equipment.
2.296
2.297
Clothing
2.298 An ongoing area of dissatisfaction for Dr McCabe, and one which she often raised in her General Inspection Reports, was the clothing provided for the children. The first recorded complaint is contained in Dr McCabes General Inspection Report of 10th November 1943. She described the boys clothing as fair but rather patched. She had the same complaint to make two years later, on 19th March 1945, when she characterised the clothing as Fair rather patched. On her next inspection, on 2nd September 1946, Dr McCabe noted that the clothing Could be improved. No details are given in this report about the exact condition of the clothing or the nature of the problem. When she spoke to the Resident Manager, he informed her that they had experienced great difficulty in obtaining material for suits, and as a result they had to purchase a number of them from shops in Cork which was most expensive. He nevertheless said that he would endeavour to make improvements. She noted that he is severely hampered on account of small quota of material and wanted to obtain a permit for supplies so that he could obtain sufficient material. When Dr McCabe called on the School on 27th October 1947, she commented that the clothing was improved but she gave no information as to how the clothing had improved. In her Inspection Report of 22nd October 1948, Dr McCabe again described the clothing as improved and added that much remains to be done. Again, no further details can be elicited from her report on the extent of the problem or what exactly needed to be done to rectify the situation. Four years later, Dr McCabe, in her General Inspection Report of 21st May 1952, again found that the clothing of the boys had improved and added that the tailors were busy making new suits. There are no Inspection Reports in existence between 1948 and 1952. For the years 1953 and 1954, Dr McCabe described the clothing situation as much improved. In her Inspection Report of 1955, clothing was simply described as improved but, by 1956, the clothing was again described by Dr McCabe as much improved. From 1957 to 1960, Dr McCabe consistently used the words improved or much improved in the section on clothing in her General Inspection Reports. 58 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
2.299
2.300
2.301
2.302
On 22nd February 1961, Dr McCabe noted that the clothing was improved, but she specifically recommended that the boys could do with a new issue of clothing all around. The subsequent Inspection Reports do not provide any insight as to whether this recommendation was carried out. When she visited the School on 20th June 1962, she again remarked that the clothing was improved. In 1963, she said it was much improved and, by 1964, she described it as much better. The Lord Mayor, who visited the School in January 1965, was also critical of the boys clothes. He was told the boys slept in their shirts, as they had no nightclothes. According to his report, their everyday clothing was rough and ready. The General Inspection Report of 15th June 1966 by Dr Lysaght provided somewhat more information on this matter. He described the boys as being well clothed neat and clean. According to his report, the tailor on site made the boys suits with the assistance of some of the boys. In the summer, they wore shorts and blazers. A former resident who was in the School in the 1950s gave evidence about the type of clothes the boys wore. He told the Committee that the clothes were unsuitable and inadequate, and summed up the situation as follows: We wore the same things year in year out; khaki shirt, khaki pants and a short jacket. No pullovers, no underwear.
2.303
2.304
2.305
2.306
The footwear, he said, consisted of leather ankle boots, which were made by the boys. He said that sometimes he had socks and sometimes he didnt, by reason of the fact that they each got only one pair, and when they needed repair they were sent to the knitting shop. While they were being repaired, boys went without socks, as there was no replacement. Another witness, who was in Upton in the 1950s, described the clothes he wore as rags, comprising a top, shorts and a pair of sandals. He also said that they wore no underwear and had a change of clothes once a week. They did have nightclothes, in the form of a nightdress, and there were no heavy winter clothes provided.
2.307
Bed-wetting
2.308 Bed-wetting was a persistent problem for some of the boys in the School. It was treated as a disciplinary issue by the Rosminians, and they attempted to solve the problem by the use of physical punishment. They sought at the time to halt the problem by waking children during the night to go to the toilet. Boys who wet the bed were known as slashers and were placed in a separate section of the dormitory. Each morning, these boys had to take their wet sheets or mattresses to the boiler house to dry. Fr Matthew Gaffney, in his general statement in 2002, accepted that this was the regime regarding bed-wetting, but stated that: In past decades the psychological nature of the difficulty was not understood, and it was thought that deterrence through corporal punishment or embarrassment in front of others was an appropriate remedy. I can appreciate by present standards, that such a response was obviously humiliating and unfair. 2.309 Former residents gave evidence of being beaten for bed-wetting. This allegation is accepted by the Rosminians. Fr OReilly, at the Phase III public hearing, stated, I accept that boys, regrettably, were punished for bed-wetting. Bed-wetting was seen principally as a disciplinary issue. Fr OReilly added, the response to bedwetting was more than wholly inadequate, it was terrible. It was terrible on boys to be punished for this. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 59
2.310
2.311
He also conceded that the practice of carrying wet sheets down to the boiler house to dry was a humiliating ritual for the boys: ... I think that boys felt humiliated by having to carry sheets. Whether it was intended to do that or not, I dont know. But obviously, having to carry your sheet in front of other boys ... was a deeply embarrassing thing to boys. There might have been just a practical reason in terms of removing the sheets from the bed where theyre wet to another place where theyll be dried. But obviously it was embarrassing.
2.312
A witness, who arrived in the School in the late 1940s, recalled that he was relegated to the bedwetting section of the dormitory. He clearly remembered the nightly visits to the dormitory by the night watchman, who used to call the boys three times during the night to go to the toilet. He described this night watchman as a savage, as he would hit the boys with his walking stick to wake them and get them out of bed. According to this witness, it was like trying to run the gauntlet to the toilet, trying to avoid a blow from this mans walking stick. If they wet the bed during the night, the next day they had to carry their mattress across to the boiler house to dry, which this witness found degrading. On the way to the boiler house, they were teased and humiliated by the other boys. His entire memory of Upton was of stale urine, overflowing toilets, abuse .... This witness also recollected that the night watchman used to have a slice of bread and butter with sugar for his pets that did not wet the bed. Eventually, he got the treat of bread and sugar when he stopped wetting the bed so in that sense he felt that giving a treat did work in halting bed-wetting. Another witness who was in the School in the 1950s also remembered that the same night watchman would do the rounds of the dormitory, and would wake the boys who wet the bed by roaring at them and hitting them with his blackthorn stick. Even though he himself did not wet the bed, he recalled that this practice of hitting the boys to get them out of bed continued from the time he arrived until the time he left the School, which was over a five-year period. One witness remembered being sent to the slashers dormitory, which was the name given for those who wet the bed. To his knowledge, he did not wet the bed in the previous industrial schools he had attended. The punishment for bed-wetting was to receive benders. The Committee also heard evidence from Br Alfonso. As Prefect in Upton for a period of six years, he was a dominant figure, and his evidence is dealt with in more detail in earlier sections. He completely rejected the allegation that there was an atmosphere of fear in Upton, and he insisted that during his time in Upton he never beat anyone for bed-wetting and never saw anyone being beaten for it.
2.313
2.314
2.315
Education and trades

2.316 The Order stated that the boys were educated to primary level only. According to the records of the Rosminians, 339 boys sat the Primary Certificate Examination between 1943 and 1966,55 of whom 167 passed, 164 failed and 8 were disqualified. The Irish language was the main difficulty. When they reached 14 years of age, their formal education ceased and they went to work in the trade shops, such as the tailors or the shoemakers or on the farm. One witness, who spent approximately five years in Upton in the 1950s, recalled that when he first arrived in the School he was unable to read or write. However, while at Upton he learnt to read and write, an achievement that he attributed to the lay teacher there who was very good. He went on to sit the Primary Certificate, which he passed. When his schooling ended, he was sent to work full-time in the garden and subsequently on the farm.
55
2.317
Records exist for only 19 of the 23 years.
60
2.318
A witness who was in Upton in the 1960s did not recall learning anything much while he was there. He had attained fifth class standard before going to Upton and, once there, he compared the education to being back into first class again .... He felt that he didnt learn anything more than what he had been taught prior to going there. His schooling lasted a total of three weeks, and then he was sent to work in the Brothers kitchen to wash pots and pans and scrub the floor. He remained there full-time until he came back from holidays one year he had delayed his return and he was sent to the garden as a punishment for this, to work for the rest of his time there. One witness described how the regime of punishment interfered with his ability to learn in the classroom and in the tailors shop. In particular, he recalled that another lay teacher used to hit him on the tips of his fingers with a map, which was cylindrical in shape and wrapped around a stick. According to him, it was very hard to learn anything because, as he said in evidence: It was very, very hard to learn anything because everything was pressure and violence, abuse, shut up, sit down. I can never remember anyone saying anything with any degree or modicum of affection or tenderness, I can never remember.
2.319
2.320
Not all boys learnt a trade in Upton. Some of them, once their schooling ended at the age of 14, were sent to work in the kitchen or the farm or in the garden, and some worked with the builder who was on site at the time of the renovations taking place in Upton. A number of boys went on to become members of the Rosminian Order. No secondary education was available in Upton itself as there was no secondary school. However, boys who were sent forward to the Novitiate in Omeath received secondary education, as was evidenced by Fr OReilly. Reference was made by Fr. Christiano to three to four boys who attended Omeath returned to the School during holidays etc. They were segregated from the other boys. They slept in an old infirmary, ate in a small refectory and did odd jobs around the School. Br Nicoli,56 who was the Secretary in Upton for over 15 years until the late 1960s, was, according to the Rosminians, quite meticulous in sourcing work and trades for boys once they left the School at 16 years of age. This Brother was unique in this regard, as he took it upon himself to seek work for the boys, since there was no policy in the School itself concerning aftercare. He kept a diary record of the number of boys who were apprenticed and engaged in different occupations. From this record it appears the boys got work in the Army, and as blacksmiths, butchers, post office clerks, postmen, drapers assistants and welders.
2.321
2.322
Family contact
2.323 The boys detained in Upton came from many of the surrounding counties and also from as far away as Dublin. They were officially allowed home in July for two weeks. They were also allowed to receive visits from parents and relatives. However, the amount of family contact depended on where the children came from and their family circumstances. For some, this meant reasonable family contact, and, for others, little or none. One witness was already one year in the School when his brother arrived. He also had regular visits from his parents. His father came almost every second week. They would be allowed to see each other alone in a room for visitors at the end of one of the corridors. The separation from family was described by one witness, who said he was deeply affected by the fact that he was sent 160 miles away from his family. He got no visits and only recently became aware that his father had extensive correspondence with the authorities, seeking to have him transferred to Artane or to an Institution nearer the family home. His mother even wrote to President De Valera at the time. His mother died in 1957, and she had been buried by the time
56
2.324
2.325
61
he was told about it, despite the fact that his father telephoned and tried to have him released in time for the funeral. 2.326 Another witness said he had no family contact and was prevented from going home on holidays, as the ISPCC put a stop to it because his mother had illegitimate children. He was sent home at age 16 on his own, having been institutionalised at the age of four, and only then met his sister for the first time. A witness described how, when his mother died when he was eight years old, which resulted in him being sent to an industrial school, it effectively broke the bonds between him and his siblings: As I say, having lived in a family environment, however limited that may have been it was still a family, you still had your siblings and you had a parent and to be taken from that environment and placed in a place where you suddenly were no longer human, you were treated as a number and any chance of having any love, affection... 2.328 When he was discharged from Upton, he was sent to the home of a neighbour who had previously looked after him. This arrangement was not successful, as the father of the house abused him, and he eventually ran away to sea at the age of 14. The whole experience was extremely unhappy, and he believes the neighbouring family should have been properly vetted. One witness described how, during his time in Upton, his father consistently applied to have him discharged. His family made him aware of this fact, but he was never told of it by the authorities in Upton. He did go home on holidays and his parents also visited him. They used to send him money and parcels from home. Witnesses remembered being allowed home for two weeks in the summer. For about a month beforehand, the regime was relaxed a little bit and the boys were reminded not to speak about Upton at home. The boys were also allowed to write a letter home once a month, and this letter was written for the boys on the blackboard and they were checked before they were posted.
2.327
2.329
2.330
Conclusions on neglect and emotional abuse

2.331 1. At times during the relevant period, food, clothing and accommodation in Upton fell below acceptable standards, for which lack of resources was not an excuse. 2. Boys went hungry and, given the size of the farm at Upton, there was no reason for it. 3. The food that was provided to the boys was poor in quality. The Brothers and priests who lived in Upton received far better food than the children. 4. Bedwetting was a persistent problem, and children were punished, humiliated and segregated in a futile attempt to deal with it. 5. The regime of punishment and fear interfered with childrens ability to learn in the classroom. 6. Removing children to this distant Institution caused emotional harm, because it cut them off from their families and social networks. 2.332 General conclusions on Upton and Ferryhouse are at paragraph 3.454 of the following Chapter on Ferryhouse.
62
Chapter 3
St Josephs Industrial School, Ferryhouse, Clonmel, (Ferryhouse), 18851999
Introduction
Buildings and layout
3.01 St Josephs Industrial School is located in the townland of Ferryhouse, some three to four kilometres due east of the centre of Clonmel, on the northern bank of the river Suir, in County Tipperary. The original building was erected at a cost of 10,000 in 1884 by Count Moore, a wealthy local Catholic benefactor, and, shortly after its construction, he invited the Rosminians to run the School. He gave them an additional 1,000 to furnish the School. It was a large, three-storey red brick building located on approximately nine acres of farmland. It was cruciform in shape, with the central projection in front housing the main entrance, with the Resident Managers office, a reception area and the church, which included the sanctuary area. Above the entrance, set in an alcove, was a statue of St Joseph. There were steps running down to the river from the entrance. The projection to the rear housed the main staircase. A cloister at the rear of the building served as a corridor. Shortly after opening, three new wings were erected, a west and east, each with two storeys, and a north-facing building of one storey. With the main house, these buildings enclosed a yard or quadrangular area, with access through an archway on the northern side. More land was bought during the course of the following decades so that, by the 1950s, the farm had increased to approximately 50 acres. In later years, a series of buildings, including a chapel, an infirmary and various workshops, were built. The focus of the School remained the original main building. The School was entirely rebuilt during the early 1980s. The dormitories were in the two upper storeys of the original three-storey building, with senior boys on the first floor and junior boys on the second floor above. Each dormitory accommodated 100 beds and a Prefects room. On the ground floor were a number of offices. The west wing was a two-storey granite structure providing community accommodation, the infirmary, nurses room and boys kitchen and dining area. The two-storey east wing housed the School classrooms up until the 1960s when they moved to prefab accommodation. This area was then converted in 1967 to a junior dormitory, at which stage the dormitory accommodation was divided into junior, intermediate and senior areas. The ground floor of the east wing comprised the hall, offices and various recreational rooms. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 63
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07
The north-facing section was a single-storey building which housed the trade shops and, in later years, various recreation areas. There were also various outhouses and maintenance sheds and, in the 1960s, an extension to the original central building was added, providing toilet and shower facilities. The Community had a separate refectory and kitchen in the main house. The Rosminian Community residence was located in the main building. All of the buildings and land still in possession of the Rosminians was transferred to the State in 2002, apart from a small holding of land unsuitable for farming south of the river Suir. A plan of these buildings is given below:
3.08
3.09
3.10
3.11
A report has been compiled by Mr Ciaran Fahy, consulting engineer, on the physical surroundings of Ferryhouse, with particular reference to the buildings. A copy of this report is appended to this chapter.
Number of boys in Ferryhouse

3.12 As can be seen from the following charts, there were between 150 and 200 boys in Ferryhouse until the 1970s. In January 1885, a Certificate was granted for the School to receive 150 boys and, in 1944, this Certificate was increased to 200. The numbers in Ferryhouse ranged from 189 boys in 1940, increasing to a high of 205 in 1960. This number decreased to 160 in 1970, but it 64 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
was still a high number of boys. Thereafter, the numbers began to gradually decline. Up until the 1980s, the numbers were far in excess of the certified number. 3.13 Numbers in other schools began dropping from the 1950s onwards, but Ferryhouse continued to be at or near its capacity, largely because it took children from other schools. Upton closed following a major fire in 1966, and 28 boys were transferred to Ferryhouse. The chart below shows the breakdown of numbers of residents throughout the years:
Year 1884 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1994 1995 1996 2004 Certification number licence for 150 children 155 children 154 children 127 children 193 children 189 children 182 children 205 160 140 80 56 36 Type of admissions Committed Committed Committed Committed Committed and voluntary Committed and voluntary Committed and voluntary Committed and voluntary Committed and voluntary Committed and voluntary Committed and voluntary Committed and voluntary Committed and voluntary
This data may also be illustrated in graph form as follows:
Numbers in Ferryhouse 250 200 150 100 50 0

1884 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1994 1995 1996
3.14 The boys were aged between nine and 16 years.
2004
First impressions of the School as described by former residents

3.15 On first entering the School, several complainants described being over-awed by the numbers. One witness, who went there in the late 1940s, described his first day as follows: Oh, it was frightening, to see them big doors open. I was introduced to the Rector at the time ... who was a very nice man, he was, very pleasant. I was taken into a room. I was given some bread and cocoa, a change of clothes ... Then you could say I was thrown out into the yard with the other boys, really frightening ... I have never seen so many boys CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 65
in my life. I thought well, I should imagine you would expect about 50 or 60 like that was in [the convent] but when you see about 200, oh dear. 3.16 A resident who was in Ferryhouse in the 1940s described his first day as fearful. His mother had recently died and five of the large family were sent to Ferryhouse. He recalled: When I arrived, we were brought in a front door and then you came through a kind of a cloister and you came out a door and there was a clock over the door now you didnt see that until you came back in and I seen this massive amount of boys. There was about 200 boys there at my time when I arrived there. There was a massive amount of boys, all ages, running, and shouting. It drove the fear of God in you and thats the truth. We kind of cuddled together, the five of us. 3.17 Another witness, in Ferryhouse in the late 1960s, also stressed the frightening impact of so many boys together at one time. On recalling his first day: We were escorted up to a laundry house and, if I am not mistaken, the laundry house would have been underneath the main stairs or somewhere in that area of the main building of Ferryhouse before you go out to the yard from the Rector's office. There was a little laundry room there which Br Leone1 was running and there he handed you out whatever clothing or blankets, I can't remember what it was. I remember the smell of the laundry room. That is all I remember of it. When I walked out the door that day and seen so many boys running around, I think it was the first and last time I actually had a good cry because I knew where I was. I didn't know there was no come back, but I knew that was the first time I actually said to myself I really missed my mother. I realised I was after being taken away. 3.18 Another witness described a similar routine at mealtime: You lined up every morning for your meals ... the small guys up the front and the bigger lads at the back. It would be like an army ... you would go in and line up. There was 11 at each table and you had a leader at the top of the table, he was responsible for cutting the horrible block of margarine that each one got a square of. 3.19 By the 1960s, the nineteenth-century buildings were becoming dilapidated and outmoded. A surprise inspection by the Department of Education of Ferryhouse, on 21st July 1966, referred to outmoded methods of housing children. Dr Lysaght, the Medical Inspector, described a depressing air of mass communal living due to the large size of the dormitories and the large number of beds. His report, which is dealt with below, recommended that the dormitories should be broken into smaller units, and the Department responded by sanctioning six new prefabs for the School. These changes prefaced the huge rebuilding programme undertaken a decade later. After the School was rebuilt, some complainants described their first impression as favourable. A resident who went there in the late 1980s, after Ferryhouse had been rebuilt, said: The first day we went down I was with the police and they were showing us around. They brought us out in the building first, they showed us where we would be just so we would settle in. Then they brought us all around the buildings, telling us what buildings was which and then brought us out to the back where there was a kind of farm, just showing us where the animals were and saying if we wanted we could help out with the animals and all. Looking around it was real nice, I thought it was going to be nicer than when I was in Michaels beforehand, because I was in St. Michaels for three weeks before going down. I was thinking it was real open, not closed doors everywhere. I thought it was a real nice place and I thought it would be okay.
1
3.20
66
3.21
Later he added: The first few weeks it was more or less the same like, everybody was okay. Then I think the first time I got hit was when I was in a fight with one of the lads, we had a disagreement.
First impressions and atmosphere of the School as described by staff

3.22 The conditions within Ferryhouse, and its atmosphere, were vividly described by some of the former and current members of the Rosminian Order. One priest, Fr Antonio,2 who was there in the late 1960s and 1970s, described the grim conditions that he found prior to the rebuilding of the School. He told the Investigation Committee: Things were very Dickensian in the place at the time in 1967/68 ... Things were very, very bad at that time. My first vision of the dormitory were all these beds in the big dormitory, full stretched up the whole way, and all the wet beds on one side of the dormitory which was a very Dickensian situation and a cruel situation at that time. One of the earliest memories I would have had going in there was a place at the end of the stairs and a young 12 year old would be in charge of the laundry and he would go in and take out all these shirts and bring them out and put them on the beds. A tall fella could have a shirt down to his navel and another fella could have his shirt down to his ankles. ... Some of the saddest memories I would have is of the boys who wet their bed bringing out their sheets to laundry in the morning because there was only one woman in the laundry and they used to have to bring them out.
Daily routine
3.23 With small variations, the daily timetable for the boys and staff in Ferryhouse followed the activity pattern set out below:
Time 6.30 7.30 8.00 8.30 9.00 Boys called/ Wash and dress Mass then breakfast/ polishing boots and clothing inspection etc School/ Workshops/technical classes Mondays and Wednesdays Playtime Catechism Playtime Dinner/play Workshops Band until 4.45 for players Play School Supper/Play Bed Supervise Supervise until night watchman arrives/ on call Supervise Supervise Supervise Activity for boys Duty for staff Rise/ prepare breakfast etc Mass Raise boys Supervise Supervise Return to dorms to check all is clean Supervise
11.30 12.00 to 12.45 12.45 to 1.00 1.00 2.30 3.00 5.00 5.30 7.45 9.00
67
3.24 3.25
In earlier years, the boys started earlier, but shifts in the time scale did not alter the basic routine. For this daily routine to run on time, the boys had to be drilled with near military precision. As one priest, Fr Ludano,3 who stayed at the School in the late 1940s and early 1950s, put it: Probably even at that time I considered it harsh ... well, there was a lot of regimentation, some of which I didnt think was necessary. It was run almost on army lines, which I think was unnecessary.
3.26
While this regimentation allowed things to run on schedule, it led to quick physical chastisement of boys who fell behind the others. One witness, resident in Ferryhouse in the late 1940s, described the regimentation and how it was enforced: In the yard playing around. Then when evening came, bedtime, I was shown the bed I would be sleeping in, an iron cast bed. We got up in the morning, wash your face, wash your hair. There was two lines of sinks, wash basins. You had to take your shirt off, one line at a time in each line of sinks. When they were finished another line would go in. Now, we had to wash our hair and our face, cold water, carbolic soap and if we didn't get the soap off in time we got a whack across the head with a cane so everybody had to rush to get the soap off ... Then we would go out and then we would make our beds. The other lot would go in, wash their heads and face until everybody was done. Then we would dress ourselves, down to Mass. We went to Mass every morning. After Mass we would go back up to the dormitory again, dust our beds, the frame of the beds, dust it. The laymen would come around, feel the bed. If there was a bit of dust left on it, if there was a bit left on it we got a wallop. What does a 10 or 11-year-old child have to get a wallop because there is a bit of dust on the frame of the bed? Anyway after that we would go down to breakfast: two slices of bread and dripping, either a cup of tea or cocoa. Then we would go to the various classes, school. We had four, I think it was four lay teachers ... We had no lady teachers, there was no ladies at all in the school while I was there, no ladies at all. After school we would have our dinner. We would have to line up in the yard like an army barracks. They would shout out in Irish, Stand to attention. At ease. Line one would go into the refectory. Then line two. We didn't say a word. If we said anything we got a wallop. We would say our grace for what was on the table, which wasn't much. We would sit down, have that, not a word out of us. Tin plate and a spoon. We would come out and then we would start playing. Then about half past four line up again for our last meal of the day. Two slices of a bread and jam and a cup of cocoa or whatever it was, tea or cocoa then about. We would be out playing then and we would have no, I beg your pardon. Before the lunch we would go to the workshops. I was in the knitting shop. There was a tailor shop, a shoemaker shop and that would go on for several hours. Then we would have our lunch. We lined up again for that. After that we would go out and play, and at about eight or half past eight we would go to bed then. We would say our night prayers. We would get up again in the morning, same routine again.
3.27
Within this regimented timetable, each boy got to know his duty. One witness explained: Some people who wet the bed might get a clattering and that would be the start of the day for them, after showing their sheets and the mattresses. Those that wet the bed would have to go for communal showers after Mass and then go to the office then to get the strap for the same thing ... Then you had your morning chores after that. Some people cleaned the long corridors of the school, clean it. Some people cleaned the dormitories.
3
68
Not everyone had morning chores, but there was a designated number of people who would do the morning chores.
Priests and Brothers in Ferryhouse

3.28 The Rosminian Community in Ferryhouse generally consisted of 10 members of the Order, both priests and Brothers. All of the members of the Community lived in the School, and each had different responsibilities. The Resident Manager and the Prefects ran the School, and the Prefects had the most direct contact with the boys. However, other Brothers and priests had responsibilities with the boys to a lesser degree. Fr Stefano4 was appointed as Resident Manager of Ferryhouse in the mid-1970s. He detailed in his evidence what staff were available to him at that time. What he described was typical of the previous decades in Ferryhouse: In the community when I arrived, I had a bursar; I had three Prefects, one for each group; and I had an assistant, a student, and a Rosminian student who was studying for the priesthood and he was there as well and he would help out in different units at different times. I had the farm manager. There was a retired gardener, a Brother who died shortly after I arrived there. I had another Brother who was helping in maintenance. There was a Brother who was in charge of the community kitchen and there was a mission secretary that was a priest who worked full-time for the Missions raising money for our African Missions and he lived with us. 3.30 Fr Stefano, therefore, had three Prefects to call upon to take care of over 150 boys. His other staff, although involved in the running of the School, were not directly involved in the day-to-day care of the boys. Throughout its history, Ferryhouse used only a small number of staff to take care of the boys. It is a fair estimate that less than 20% of the religious Community present in Ferryhouse had a direct role in the provision of care to the boys: Sample table of staff to pupil ratio in Ferryhouse
Year Number of boys resident 193 189 182 205 160 Total number of Rosminian Community 9 9 10 12 12 Number of prefects 2 2 2 2 3 Prefect/boy ratio
3.29
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
96/1 94/1 91/1 102/1 53/1
69
Physical abuse
Physical abuse: what the Institute of Charity have conceded
3.31 As far back as 1990, on the occasion of the public opening of a new school in Ferryhouse, the Provincial spoke of the boys who had been damaged by the years they spent in the old Ferryhouse, and of those who looked back in anger and bitterness on their time there. He said: The greatest guilt has to be borne by those of us who utilised or condoned or ignored the extreme severity, even brutality which characterised at times the regime at old Ferryhouse. 3.32 This awareness of the extreme severity, even brutality, of the old regime was reiterated in statements made to the Investigation Committee. Fr OReilly, speaking on behalf of the Order at the Phase I public hearing on 7th September 2004, outlined its position on the use of corporal punishment at St Josephs, Ferryhouse. He told the Investigation Committee: Id say that most of the boys who were in Ferryhouse would have received corporal punishment at one time or another in the course of their time there for what was regarded as misbehaviour, be that absconding, or some other thing, and I think that corporal punishment was the standard that was acceptable at that time. 3.33 3.34 He went on to say, however, I am sure that punishment at times for running away was excessive. The Rosminians prepared a respondent statement in response to each complainants allegations of physical abuse. This statement was furnished to the Commission by Fr Matt Gaffney, Provincial Superior, in May 2002. It further clarified the attitude of the Order to the era when corporal punishment was in widespread use. He wrote: Corporal punishment should be seen in an institutional context where the maintenance of control was an absolute necessity, and in particular in the light of social attitudes of the time. It is true that the ideal of child-care in Industrial Schools was to avoid corporal punishment when possible, but that unfortunately provided an aspiration without the means of achieving it. The absence of child-care training left staff at the schools without any practical policy other than personal judgment, which was fallible and always hardpressed. The use of corporal punishment as a general disciplinary measure, and its uses also as a punishment or deterrent for bed wetting, absconding and other infractions, in times when corporal punishment was generally socially acceptable, produced a disciplinary environment in which the distinction between punishment and abuse could become blurred. 3.35 In their Final Submission to the Investigation Committee, after all the hearings had been completed, the Rosminians wrote: The susceptibility of corporal punishment to abuse seems inherent. If left to discretion, a cause can always be found for its use, especially where authority is threatened or insecure ... It must be said that Prefects seem to have varied widely in their use of corporal punishment. This appears to be reflected in the pattern of complaints. This in itself would suggest that problems of corporal punishment were created in part by a lack of policy and supervision. 3.36 The approach taken by the Rosminians had many advantages for the complainants giving evidence to the Committee. Above all, it made it easier for them to tell of their experiences. The Rosminians inquisitorial approach actively engaged with the Commission in searching for facts. 70 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
The victims were sometimes helped to recall details, and were often asked to add to the facts known to the Order. 3.37 However, the Order were loath to admit that the kind of corporal punishment administered as part of the regime often constituted physical abuse. This contrasted with their approach to known sexual abusers, where they did not dispute the abusive nature of the behaviour.
The role of Prefect

3.38 While all members of the Order and the lay teachers could use corporal punishments, the majority of the complaints received by the Investigation Committee named members of the Order who had been appointed Prefects. Until the late 1960s, when the number of dormitories was increased to three following a critical inspection, there were two Prefects, one for the junior and one for the senior section. Fr OReilly told the Investigation Committee: ... it was regarded as the responsibility of the Prefects to look after the children, regardless of how many there were there ... once the children came out for all activities, whether that was football or hurling or soccer in the yard or whatever it had to be, you had to organise that and you had to ensure, as far as you could, that you had an eye on all the children or as many as you possibly could have, because that is your responsibility. 3.39 It was regarded as an impossible task, unless the supervision of the children also involved a degree of control over them through fear of punishment. One former Prefect told the Investigation Committee: I certainly would have hit chaps with the palm of my hand as well if the frustration got too much ... I wouldn't have been unique, I don't think, no ... we always tried to leave that side of it to one of the others if they would do it. Somebody has to take on the responsibility of the disciplinarian, one of us could step back and let ... whoever was there do it ... That kind of shoved you into a role at the time as well. 3.40 The Prefects, he explained: allowed somebody to take the flak, we all do it in groups unfortunately at times, somebody else takes on this role of being the disciplinarian and everybody else can sit back and say Ill send you to [the Prefect]. 3.41 A Prefect from the 1960s, Br Alfonso,5 described the role of Prefect in the following terms: the Prefect of Discipline was public enemy numero uno. That he was the first public enemy because he was the only one who is to dish out discipline. He was to physically punish the children if that were necessary. 3.42 Fr Antonio, who was in Ferryhouse in the late 1940s and 1950s, told the Committee, The advice I was given when I went over there first, make sure they know who is boss and your job was to keep control. There was very little support, I might add. Once shoved into the role of Prefect, he went on: You just have to go in and pretend that you are the big boy, which I did at the time ... I roared and shouted and put a fella away and said that will stop that messing now. I dont remember hitting anybody that particular night, many a time I did. You would kind of take on the acting role ... Then, looking back now, while I was acting Im sure the children didnt think I was acting at all, so that would have frightened them as well ... You would think I was going to kill them. It was using fear really to get control.
5
3.43
71
3.44
Fr Antonio told the Committee that he had requested that he be removed from the Prefects position. He said: I was glad to get away from the prefecting ... it was too boring and walking around just like that all day, nothing to do. I would prefer to be working, doing something.
3.45
He took up another position in the School, and became happier in his work. Indeed, one of the complainants singled him out as a kind and helpful Brother, whereas, when Prefect, he did rule by fear, and was named by many complainants as unfeeling, cruel and severe.
The leather straps

3.46 The official instrument used to punish was the leather strap as discussed in the chapter on Upton. There were two kinds: one was a shaped single piece of leather; and the other was known as a doubler. It is likely that different straps were in use from time to time, and it is not certain that all of them contained metal or coins within them. The heavier strap was kept in the Prefects office on the ground floor, a room that served also as the sweet shop, and boys who had committed more serious offences were sent there for punishment. Another strap, also a doubler, was sometimes kept in the Prefects room adjacent to the dormitory. It appears that some Prefects carried a strap in their cassock or up a sleeve, to act as both a deterrent and to punish as they felt appropriate. Both boys and Brothers agreed that, to receive the strap, the boy faced the Prefect or Brother, and blows from the strap were along the length of the hand and forearm. The Brothers spoke of giving a boy a few slaps, but when the witnesses described their pain and distress the full pathos of corporal punishment emerged. Many graphic descriptions are given below. As one witness put it, The doublers ... when you were getting hit it used to go up your arm ... You got it right up the arm. Many said the most painful was the blow upon the wrist. Being beaten on the hands was known as getting handers, and being struck on the buttocks or back was known as a flamming. In theory, flammings were reserved for very serious offences such as absconding and, as a rule, only the Prefects administered them. The Rules and Regulations governing Industrial and Reformatory Schools, issued to all certified schools in 1933,6 allowed Chastisement with the cane, strap or birch, but made no attempt to describe the implements. The Department of Education Inspector, Mr Mcheal O Sochfhrada, issued more precise guidelines in a circular of 1946, in which he stated that corporal punishment should in future be confined to the form usually used in schools, that is, slapping on the open hand with a light cane or strap. Any form of punishment that was not in accordance with the circular was strictly prohibited. The heavy double straps in use until 1993 in Ferryhouse, often weighted with coins, could not be described as a light strap. Nor could a blow along the arm be described as slapping on the open hand. Therefore, neither the implement nor the manner of delivering the blow were in accordance with the rules and regulations governing corporal punishment.
3.47
3.48
3.49
3.50
3.51
3.52
Documentary evidence on physical abuse

3.53 There is no documentary evidence on the use of corporal punishment and the issue of physical abuse. There is no punishment book for Ferryhouse. This is all the more surprising, given the fact
6
Set out in full in Volume I.
72
that the Prefect who had introduced the punishment book in Upton in 1952 also served as Prefect in Ferryhouse from 1960. Since the punishment books were intended to control the use of corporal punishment and curb its excesses, its absence makes it more difficult to establish the extent and severity of such abuse.
The evidence of the complainants

3.54 The Investigation Committee heard evidence from 29 individuals who spent time in Ferryhouse as children. Nearly all of them described being physically punished. Many expressed an acceptance of corporal punishment if it was proportionate and deserved. For example, one witness, in Ferryhouse in the late 1960s and early 1970s, told the Committee: You just have to be, kind of, street wise down there, you know ... I was never really punished much ... if there was a group of you you would always get one or two on the hands and that was it. You would just take it and leave it, you know ... sometimes they were deserved, yes. 3.55 He went on to describe the kinds of offences that incurred different levels of physical punishment: Sometimes would be two, sometimes it would be four. Six if it was something bad, you know what I mean, smoking, say, for instance ... or cursing, you know, if you called somebody something you would probably only get two or three ... but really really trouble you would get six. 3.56 A predictable tariff for offences would have allowed boys to work out what was fair or deserved punishment, and also taught the street wise boy what to do to avoid being beaten. If applied properly, it would have made the punishment regime predictable. This particular witness accepted being physically punished if he had done wrong and if he got what he deserved. He reserved his criticism for unfair punishment, or excessive violence. He told the Investigation Committee: It was strict ... like, when you look back over it, it is for stupid things; wet the beds or you soiled your pants or something like that. 3.57 He elaborated on this theme later: Soiling your underpants, checking your underpants and if you are soiled everyone else know about it. That is not human. You used to have to go up and open your underpants and show them in a line and there would be people scrubbing and spitting on them ... they are the things that stick in your mind. 3.58 Many witnesses described being physically punished in circumstances that they considered being excessive, unfair and capricious. Although a few spoke of being punished by the Resident Manager, or by other members of the Rosminian Community, almost all focused on punishments inflicted by the Prefects, who were in charge of the boys. Complaints were not confined to the use of the strap as an instrument of punishment. Some testified to being struck by various other implements, and a number of witnesses spoke of being punched or kicked. Complaints of physical punishment related to every decade in respect of which the Investigation Committee heard evidence. The earliest evidence came from a witness who was admitted in 1943. The latest evidence came from one who left Ferryhouse in 1991. In each of these decades, boys living in Ferryhouse complained of punishment that was severe and excessive, and beyond what was permitted under the rules governing industrial schools. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 73
3.59
3.60
3.61
Excessive punishment 3.62 Several witnesses described beatings that went far beyond the limits of moderate chastisement. These severe beatings were usually given after serious offences, such as absconding. Running away was viewed as particularly serious for several reasons: first, the safety of the boys themselves was a consideration; secondly, there was a fear that the neighbours in Clonmel might be burgled or disturbed by the absconders; thirdly, all cases of absconding had to be reported to the Department of Education, so involved extra administration and possible reprimand; fourthly, one boy absconding unsettled the other boys and frequently triggered a spate of absconding; and finally, the Garda would have to be informed and searches had to be organised. The Prefect had the responsibility of organising the search for absconders. For all these reasons, absconders were dealt with severely. When they were returned, they were usually punished with the strap, often in view of other boys, and in the earlier years their heads were shaved. At one stage, Fr Antonio informed the Committee: They used to put them in pyjamas and coats over the top to stop them running away ... Again it was Dickensian ... And there were other occasions where they were put in short pants as well. 3.64 The major deterrent remained corporal punishment, and, as the Rosminians have conceded, corporal punishment for running away was at times excessive. A witness who was resident in Ferryhouse in the late 1940s, when he was aged approximately 14 years, told the Investigation Committee of a particularly severe beating he received for absconding. He ran away four or five days after his arrival and was found by the Garda and brought back. He was not punished on this occasion. A week later, he ran away again, and was picked up a few days later, early in the morning, by the Garda at his home. He was put in a police cell, a dirty stinking hole of a dungeon and was forgotten about until there was a change of shift. He received no food at all, and was collected late that evening by a Brother, and driven back to Ferryhouse. He described what ensued: Went to bed because it was very late at night. Within about 15 minutes, I was hauled out of bed by Br Gian.7 In those days we had no nightclothes, we slept in our shirt, he grabbed hold of my shirt and pulled it up over my head and my arms were held up like that and I was flogged unmercifully for a long period of time ... across the back, small of the back, the buttocks, the backs of my thighs and he left marks nearly an inch wide and they were there for months. When my mother come to see me they wouldnt let her see me because she could clearly see the back of my legs, they were all bruised. 3.66 He did not try to run away again. Neither he added, did anybody else. We lived in fear, I never looked up from the ground after that. Following that beating when he finally left the Institution and went home, he never left the house for a period of two years. A witness who was in Ferryhouse in the 1950s described seeing a boy who had absconded receive a severe beating in the dormitory on his return. He was visibly distressed as he told his story: He was 14, I think, 14 years of age, a big lad. A nice person. I used to refer to him as a gentle giant ... he was given an example beating in the dormitory ... He ran away with another two lads or something like that ... he was protesting, he had been in the school because he was 14 and the Committal Order was until he was 14 ... He should have been out. I think that was his general thing so he ran away. He was caught, brought back and up in the lower dormitory, at night time, when we were all up in the dormitory ... He was
7
3.63
3.65
3.67
74
again brought out in the dormitory ... and he was approached by this Br Maximo8 ... Br Maximo would be the main physical man. [There were three other staff there] ... I dont know. Did they want him to tip over so they could strap him on the backside? ... He wouldnt anyway. He grabbed the bed and he wouldnt let go of the bed so Br Maximo then proceeded to come down on his fists, on the boys fists on the bed ... then Br Maximo went to physically attack him anyway on the body ... He gave him a couple of whacks of the strap as well to see would that loosen the grip. It didnt. We were all kind of getting closer and closer to what was happening ... In the end I think .... did, out of pure weakness, let go of the bed. Br Maximo started strapping him with the strap ... From fisting, and from clattering and from the strap ... it was quite a bad beating he got. Bear in mind he was only a young boy and you have a full physical adult using fists and what have you on him. 3.68 A witness who was there in the late 1960s absconded twice, the first time with his brother and another boy, and the second time with two other boys. He told the Investigation Committee, I think the first time they let us go because we were only young and they realised we wanted just to go home. The second time, however: We were brought back and we were made to shower again in our swimming trunks, and they would dip them in salt and they would slap us again and give us a much more severe beating this time, maybe 12 times. 3.69 Many former residents described severe beatings they called flammings, a term apparently peculiar to Ferryhouse. One resident, who was in Ferryhouse in the 1940s, defined a flamming as follows: They were administered mostly in the dormitory in front of everyone. They consisted of you being called. Then you took off your shirt because you wore your shirt at night ... and you were put across the bed ... The strap that I was talking about was laid into your body and they didnt care where they hit you ... You were completely naked ... Most of the time you were made put your hands across over the bed, sometimes they were held ... You see, you were in constant fear ... of being punished for the least thing, for the simplest of reasons or maybe for no reason at all. 3.70 He went on to draw a distinction between punishment and abuse: If you asked me before to ban corporal punishment, I would have said corporal punishment is a necessity ... The corporal punishment we got, if we got it properly, it was right, it is the corporal punishment that was not right that I did not agree with. The corporal punishment that became abuse is what Im talking about. Putting out your two hands ... we all got it in school, but flammings you didnt get in school ... in schools you got the hand, you may even have got the pulling of the hair or the ear when you done something wrong. I wouldnt be here today complaining about that. 3.71 A former resident who was in Ferryhouse in the late 1960s and early 1970s described a beating that went from being a deserved punishment, given because he was seen doing a two-finger gesture behind a Brother saying Grace, to being a vicious assault. He told the Investigation Committee: I was called into the office ... I knew I was caught ... Fr Paolo9 had [the leather] in his hand. He said put out your hand, so I put out me hand and I took one ... and he asked me for the other one and I said my thumb was sore, I was after bending it back playing football and I didnt want it on that hand because it would have been worse then, because if you take two or three on one hand you dont feel them. If you are getting six you wont
8 9
75
feel the other three or four anyway and I wouldnt and he insisted and I kept moving. I wanted him to catch me this side [indicating], rather than this side of me thumb ... He kept missing me because I kept moving it ... One time he skinned it, and the next time he went and I pulled it, and he missed completely ... I could see in his face he was going to batter me ... I seen it and he went for me and I just went down in a huddle ... As I was going down I seen him drawing back to hit me and he caught me with the width of the thing ... It wasnt the flat part. He caught me with the thickness of it on the back there, on the back of the neck there ... I was down for a minute and he stood back. He didnt go mad on me or anything. It was one blow ... When I looked he was back ... I stood up and he said, Put out your hand ... I put out this hand and I took the rest. I do not know if it was one or two more on me hand, and I walked out. I had genuinely got a sore thumb but everyone used to say it because if you took two you dont feel the rest because your hand is numb. That was a ploy but they knew about it as well you know. 3.72 A witness who was in Ferryhouse in the latter half of the 1960s gave a similar account of a punishment that went out of control. The punishment was meted out by Br Valerio10 who, in the private hearing, instructed his counsel to say, Br Valerio does not deny [the complainants] allegation as it is set out in his statement of complaint.11 The statement said: When I was 131 years old, maybe 14 years, I was going for a walk with other boys from 2 St Josephs. I dont know which Brother had us out for the walk but we were walking in twos and on the way out we were doing some messing ... When we got back to the school Br Valerio called me and another fellow out because of what happened on the walk. I was sent to the office to see him ... Inside the office Br Valerio asked me about the messing on the walk and if I had been involved and I denied it. He said he would give me one more chance to tell the truth. I denied it again and this time he got out the long leather strap. He had a reputation of not using his fists to hit boys but of using the strap. He gave me blows with the strap to each hand and he started to hit me all over the body with the strap. He hit me all over but did not hit my head. This lasted a good 5 minutes. 3.73 Fr Ludano who was resident in Ferryhouse in the early 1950s recalled one occasion when he was approached by a few boys about a Brother who had punished another boy. He told the Investigation Committee: Some of the boys came to me and said: Brother so and so, he slapped so and so even though he is only a baby. And that stayed in my mind ... I was horrified ... [I did] nothing ... I didnt know what to do ... You see, my own position would have been a visitor, or just passing through or whatever ... I was very sorry for the little fellow who was involved, you know, and he was only a baby. 3.74 Even in an institution that was accustomed to the use of corporal punishment, there was an awareness of what was excessive and cruel. Neither the boys nor the priest, however, could challenge the right of the Brother to inflict punishment as he saw fit. Within Ferryhouse, it was the Brother in charge who set the rules. Unfair punishment 3.75 The Investigation Committee heard many complaints of punishments that were essentially unfair. It was not the severity of the beating but the injustice of it that gave cause for grievance. As one witness put it, Nothing you could do, could be an accident. Everything was deliberate that you did so you were punished.
10 11
This is a pseudonym. Br Valerio did not give evidence to the Committee; he lives abroad.
76
3.76
One witness described one such incident, when he was unfairly beaten by Br Maximo: I was coughing in the dormitory, I wasn't feeling well, I was sick and I was coughing and I don't know what time it would be, maybe it would be after ten or eleven or twelve o'clock at night and Br Maximo came out. He went down along the aisle of the dormitory, one of the aisles, and he wanted to see who was coughing. So he spotted me anyway and he said, Were you coughing? I said, I was. So with that he went and started belting me and clattering me from head down across the body for coughing ... With his hands, yes and told me not to cough again ... He gave me a fair old walloping that time ... It was so unfair severe at the same time. I never heard of anyone getting a hiding for being sick. That would be my view.
3.77
Another former resident recounted an incident when he was beaten with a strap, even though he had done nothing wrong: I used to go to the boiler room to turn the steam on, and one day a glass was broken ... It was on the side of the boiler, a kind of dial to show how much water was in the boiler. I didnt break it, but I got belted for it on the hands because I was supposed to have been the only one who had gone in there.
3.78
A resident in the early 1960s described being beaten for something that he did not realise was a serious offence in the eyes of the Order. He explained: I got a serious beating there there used to be a girl, I cannot think of her name now, she used to come out from Clonmel on a bicycle ... I remember the address. She was talking to me one day at the hay barn, I suppose I was maybe 15 at the time, but I knew nothing about young ones or anything like that, I was just plain ignorant and that. I was talking to her at the hay barn and the next thing Fr Dino12 came along. He gave her a clatter and sent her off home anyway to Clonmel. We were just talking, there was absolutely nothing involved; but I got a bad beating that day and I ended up, I ran away out of Ferryhouse over it. That was a serious beating I got over that.
3.79
A resident in the 1940s described two flammings, he was given undeservedly. On one occasion, he was accused of asking a person for a cigarette on the Waterford Road, which ran by the School. I didnt do it, he said, but someone elses word was taken instead of mine and I was flammed for that. The worst beating he received was when he was accused of allegedly claiming he had seen a priest eating in the kitchen when he should have been fasting. In fact, he had simply said he had seen the priest in the kitchen. I got an unmerciful hiding that day and not alone that did I get a hiding, at periods I was sent out and made stand against the wall with my fingers up against the wall like that ... [indicating]. Other forms of punishment
3.80
Staff members were not merely authorised to use corporal punishment, they were given the freedom to use it at will. This freedom allowed for even greater scope for abuse. One complainant, a resident in the early 1970s, told the Investigation Committee: Not only me, we all got hidings for nothing, it all depends which way Br Valerio woke up in the morning. If we didn't make our beds right, if it wasn't inch perfect we got the slap. If our shoes weren't properly done or if our collars weren't properly inside our jumpers we got the slap for it. More or less for anything.
3.81
A witness who was in Ferryhouse in the late 1950s described a physical punishment favoured by Br Maximo:
12
77
A few times, I don't know what for, I can't remember what it was for but I remember a few times where he told me, he used to do this a lot with a lot of people, hold the head steady by holding the ear to make sure that you didn't move your head when he was going to give you a clatter on the other side of the head. He would give you several clatters maybe on the other side ... with the open hand. 3.82 The Rosminians conceded that most of the physical punishment would have happened in a spontaneous way. If there were an incident in the yard, a Prefect would hit a boy a slap as opposed to going through the whole process of administering corporal punishment at a designated time. Fr OReilly called these spontaneous responses. He explained, it wasnt corporal punishment in terms of receiving the cane. Like, I would acknowledge that it is quite possible that a Prefect just immediately slapped the boy. These spontaneous responses allowed some Brothers and priests to use physical chastisement as a first resort for correcting a child, and it was not always confined to one or two slaps. Depending on the mood of the Prefect, it could be a few slaps or a severe beating. A witness from the late 1960s told the Committee that even good boys would be beaten. He explained: I was very quiet. I kept myself to myself and stayed out of trouble ... we were beaten on regular occasions for talking in the refectory, or whatever. Stuff like that ... Every one of the boys got beaten on some occasion. No matter how good you were you were always beaten at least at some certain occasion. 3.84 He gave an example of such on-the-spot chastisement: [Fr Paolo] said, Lights out and we werent allowed to speak after lights out and one of the boys might say something and he would be called out in front of Fr Paolo and he would hit him with his back handed slap ... the boy would be looking up to him, he would be only tiny, he would be only seven or eight years old, and he would put a full slap on with the back of his hand and he would put him actually spinning. 3.85 The clatter was often the main means of correction, so boys lived in an environment where they expected to be hit regularly and often. Perhaps the worst effect of gratuitous and capricious punishment was its unpredictability. No matter what the boys did, a punishment was still a possibility. The result was a climate of fear. A witness who was in Ferryhouse in the late 1960s vividly described the kind of fear he experienced every day. He told the Investigation Committee: I cried most days in that school. I was so scared when the next beating was going to come, whether it would be me. I mean I cried for my friends, my friends cried for me. We didnt deserve this stuff, we really didnt deserve this ... It was the beatings that was given and dished out in there was savage, man, savage ... I was a child you know, a child. Ive walked landings with hard men in the Joy [prison], in Cork, wherever. I was never afraid. I would stand eye to eye with people that killed people. I wasnt afraid. But I was afraid when I was in that school, every day of my fecking life. That is what I want you to understand.
3.83
3.86
Punishment for bed-wetting

3.87 Fr OReilly, in his evidence to the Investigation Committee given on 7th September 2004 at Phase I, said that nocturnal enuresis had always been a problem at their schools: If we are taking bed-wetting or enuresis as a problem, it seems to me that you are talking somewhere between 20 and 30% of the boys with a problem in that area. 78 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
3.88
When asked how bed-wetters were dealt with, he replied: Well, we have no records to say how boys were dealt with who wet the bed. Were boys punished for wetting the bed? We dont have records of that and when I spoke with members of the Congregation who would have worked there, they would not recall that boys were punished for wetting the bed.
3.89
He conceded, however, that boys who wet were kept in a separate area known as the sailors dorm, and that boys were also given the term sailors. The Rosminians explained, It is generally felt that these beds were kept together so that the smell of urine did not pervade the whole dormitory and thus the boys who did not wet the bed did not have to suffer the smell. The Rosminians now accept that it would have been humiliating for a boy to be known as a sailor or bed-wetter. They also state that it is quite possible that certain Prefects used this as a way of asserting their authority. The Rosminians also concede that other practices were used to try to stop bed-wetting. The boys were required to wash their own sheets each morning. They would have to take their wet sheets down from the dormitory to the laundry, wash them and then hang them up to dry. In the evening, they would have to collect their own sheets and return them to the dormitory. This practice continued until a new Prefect arranged for the sheets to be washed by a housekeeper. The boys still had to bring down their wet sheets to the laundry room, and that continued to mark them out and humiliate them. Two further humiliating practices existed for boys who wet the bed. The Rosminians admitted that a very demeaning practice developed for a short time of making boys with enuresis wear a short skirt for a period of a day or two. Another practice also developed, whereby bed-wetters would be required to walk around the schoolyard with a mattress above their heads. It was put to Fr OReilly that bed-wetting seemed to have been treated as a problem of discipline, even though it was probably the least subject to discipline. He replied: I would have to agree with you. You know, if a child has a difficulty in that area and is upset, obviously you are going to increase the problem by drawing even more and more attention to it and certainly by punishing the child or by causing the child to be even more afraid than he was.
3.90
3.91
3.92
3.93
3.94
3.95 3.96
However, he again added, I dont know that children were habitually punished for wetting the bed. The question of whether bed-wetting was routinely punished was fully answered in the evidence given to the Investigation Committee at the private hearings. One of the Prefects in charge of the dormitory, Br Ignacio,13 told the Committee: [The top dormitory] was divided into two, they were all the wet beds, as we call them, there on one side, and then the rest of the boys on the other ... When I went there I always thought they were punished ... Which I didnt agree really, but as it before I went and it was well before I went there, I wasnt the one to stop the discipline. Hard as it was for me to administer a couple of slaps for each boy ... They were punished every day if they wet the bed ... They went down with their sheets ... to dry them below where the heating for the showers were ...
13
3.97
79
3.98
He added, That is the way it was when I went in there. Boys [who wet the bed] were always slapped ... one in each hand ... before they went to bed the next night. He went on to say that he had never agreed with punishing the boys, because some boys I know didnt do it purposely, just in their sleep they wet the bed, they couldnt be accountable for that. However, he added That was the case when I became Prefect and I didnt discontinue that. He was then asked how the boys should have been treated. He replied: If I know what I know now, I wouldnt have administered punishment at all, but I was young at the time and that is the way it was handed down from Prefect to Prefect during all the course of the years.
3.99
3.100
3.101
He went on to advance the bizarre proposition that some boys deliberately wet their beds, I knew some fellows didnt mean it, just did it in their sleep ... but there could be others there who didnt ... I couldnt distinguish. It was put to him that he was therefore punishing them all in case one boy deliberately wet the bed. He knew that some of the boys could not help wetting the bed and it was not their fault but, at the same time, he felt that some of them deliberately wet the bed and, as he could not distinguish between them, he punished all who wet the bed. He replied, Exactly, yes and two slaps would not hurt anyone, never, you know. He then said, I am very sorry for it, very sorry for having done that indeed. His counsel apologised on his behalf to a complainant who had been beaten for wetting the bed. He told him: Br Ignacio does not and will not in his evidence seek to justify the administration of corporal punishment to bed-wetters in an effort to deter bed-wetting. He accepts there is no justification ... for the administration of corporal punishment to people who wet the bed in the hope or expectation of deterring them from wetting the bed in the future ... Br Ignacio now accepts this was a stupid thing to be doing if he wanted kids to stop wetting the bed ... Br Ignacio will say in evidence that the Prefect that he replaced when he took over as Prefect ... and the Prefect who succeeded him ... administered corporal punishment to the bed-wetters ... he accepts now it was entirely wrong.
3.102 3.103
3.104
The Prefect himself apologised again, and the conflict between his own beliefs and feelings about how to treat the children and the requirements of his duty to follow the rules and tradition of the Institution fully emerged: There was one thing I do regret is having to punish the boys who wet the bed. That was all. That was the biggest, or should I say ... the worst and I couldnt bear to do that and still it was the done thing, give a couple of slaps on the hand and it was against my nature to do that...I didnt want to do that at all although it was done the whole time, years and years before I went there and that was done all the time and that was the, how shall I say, the order of the time....It was against my nature altogether to do that because I knew very well some of them couldnt help it but it was the done thing like. I couldnt very well be the one to stop that, because I would be the worst in the world. You might have the whole lot of them wetting it after a while.
3.105
He found it impossible to break with the Schools precedents and tradition. Beating boys to stop them wetting the bed was acknowledged to be a stupid thing to be doing because it was ineffective and did not stop the wetting. Indeed, it may have made bed-wetting worse. The practice of beating them, however, was handed down from Prefect to Prefect during all the course of the 80 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
years, and the Prefect felt he was powerless to stop it, even though it was cruel and pointless. As in many institutions, tradition outweighed reason. Evidence on bed-wetting from former residents 3.106 The Prefect whose evidence has just been discussed expressed the belief that two slaps would not hurt anyone. Many of the former residents told the Investigation Committee about the effects of facing these beatings at the end of every day. A resident from the 1940s said: It was rampant throughout, not just the bed-wetters, everybody got beaten. If you were a bed-wetter my God it was a second helping, a third helping, but you got beat during the day as well, but you were guaranteed it every night. I wished they would give it to us in the morning, get it over with. No, you were all day sweating and you got a few handers during the day and you still had to take whatever. Once it was over thank God, but you got it the next night again because you knew you were going to wet. 3.107 He had earlier tried to express the pain of the experience: The wet-the-beds went into the toilet, in they would walk. You would have to hold your sleeve of your corduroy to get the full whack of the hand. When you are getting beat, you shake, you can't help it, you couldn't with them. Keep your hand still and there you are we had a little thing at the beginning but they copped on to that very quick. When the slap came down we used to bring the hand with it. Anyway, if you didn't they would keep beating you until you keep it still. You try to keep a still hand and the blue marks and the pain and the swelling with a leather strap. If you didn't stop they would just put it across the sink and you couldn't move it then so you got it. 3.108 A resident in the early 1960s told of how the beatings had shifted to the mornings, but the inevitability of being beaten for wetting the bed remained. He had not wet the bed in the previous institution, but on his way down to Ferryhouse he drank too much lemonade. That night he wet the bed, was beaten and consigned to the sailors section. From then on, he lived in fear of doing it. He explained: I used to try and stay awake until I wanted to go to the toilet and then I would go to the toilet, but it didnt work. I would fall asleep eventually. 3.109 He described the ritual the next morning: If you wet the bed you had to put your hand up the next morning. They would go around and ask, Any sailors? and you would put your hand up. So you took your mattress and your sheet and brought it downstairs to a drying room and you got a cold shower ... If you stepped out of line in the cold shower, if you didnt stand directly underneath the cold shower, you were hit with a strap. If you stood underneath the shower you still got your punishment over in the office. Once you wet the bed you were due a punishment ... Some of them would hit you up there (indicating his arm) ... Some of them would barely get you up the wrist ... Some of them would hit you right up the arms. 3.110 He differentiated between one Brother, who would take pleasure in hitting you for nothing, and another Brother who would kind of gave you your slaps and let you go ... he would just give you your dose of medicine and you would be gone. According to the evidence of Fr Antonio, he did occasional holiday relief work in Ferryhouse from the late 1960s to the late 1980s. He later worked as Director of Ferryhouse from the early to mid1990s. He said those who wet their beds during his time were not physically punished. That had stopped sometime in the mid-1960s. Also, boys were no longer segregated into a separate section. However, the boys who wet the beds still had to take their sheets down the old fire escape and across the yard to be washed in the laundry. He told the Committee: CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 81
3.111
Some of the saddest memories I would have is of the boys who wet their bed bringing out their sheets to laundry in the morning because there was only one woman in the laundry and they used to have to bring them out. 3.112 During the 1960s, other steps were taken in an effort to ease the situation. During Fr Rafaeles14 time (mid-1960s to early 1970s), electronic devices that woke the boys went on trial. The segregation of those who wet the beds in the designated section of the dormitories ceased. Fr OReilly admitted to the Investigation Committee that the number of boys who wet the bed decreased only when conditions got better, because there was a reduction in the level of fear and anxiety about bed-wetting and because boys were no longer humiliated by being required to carry their sheets down to the laundry room themselves. Documentary evidence on the punishment of bed-wetting 3.114 In 1962, a County Waterford mother wrote a letter of complaint to the Department of Education about the way in which her son was punished for wetting the bed while in St Josephs, Ferryhouse. She wrote: Dear Sir I am writing this to ask you about my boys ... whom Justice Skinner released three weeks ago, well I want to tell you what happened their brother ... who was only sent also [earlier in the year] for three months, he was suffering from kidney trouble and the punishment they were giving him for wetting the bed was stand under a cold shower and one night he was put out of the bed by the Brother and given four showers at 9:30 p.m. Then into the office in the morning and nine whips of the leather on each hand, and they told him they would increase it, well he had to run and I said it to the Priest, you would run too and so would I. Well he ran home in a terrible state chilled to the bone so I thought he would have a nervous breakdown so I wired for his father to come for him. 3.115 Fr Alanzo15 twice wrote to the Reformatory and the Industrial Schools Branch of the Department of Education about the mothers complaint. In his first letter in 1962, he spoke despairingly of her: I have had more trouble from their mother than I have had from the rest of the boys, but he does not deal with the complaints raised. His second letter to the Department, sent a month later, is revealing insofar as it conceded that cold showers were given, and suggested that bed-wetting was 99% a bad habit and the result of bad upbringing and laziness on the part of the boys, and it goes on to describe the mother as a neurotic person. Fr Alanzo failed, however, to deal with the question of whether corporal punishment was administered for bed-wetting, and, if so, whether it was the Institutions policy. The Commission does not have any documentation suggesting that the Department followed up this issue. What does emerge from the correspondence is the way in which the mother was seen as a neurotic troublemaker. The Managers main concern was not dealing with the substance of the complaint, that her son had been ill-treated and beaten for bed-wetting, but placating the Department of Education on the matter. In another sense, her persistence paid off, because her third son was released before the end of the month. The General Inspection Report of Dr Lysaght dated 21st July 1966 refers to the problem of bedwetting in the School, stating that it is somewhat a problem. According to the acting Resident Manager, Fr Dino, there were about a dozen cases of bed-wetting in the School at that time, and it was his belief that the boys who came from the Convent schools were the worst in this regard.
14 15
3.113
3.116
3.117
82
The movement towards the abolition of corporal punishment

The minutes of a meeting of Rosminian Superiors to discuss the issue 3.118 The question of corporal punishment in Ferryhouse was considered at a meeting of Rosminian Superiors and others, which took place in Drumcondra on 19th April 1968. Fr Filippo,16 Provincial of the Rosminian Institute, called this meeting, and amongst those who attended was Fr Rafaele, Resident Manager of Ferryhouse, Fr Pietro,17 a previous Resident Manager there, and Fr Lucio18 who succeeded Fr Rafaele in 1970. Also in attendance was Fr Ludano. The problem of corporal punishment was raised by the Fr Provincial, Fr Filippo, because Recent events seemed to indicate that the administration of it had gone beyond the mean in the past. His solution was to make it the responsibility of the Rector or the Headmaster, with the Provincial as manager ultimately responsible. He canvassed their opinions. One of the solutions suggested had in fact been in the regulations for decades, that all punishments of this kind should be recorded, and further that they should be administered in the presence of a witness. The Brothers suggested the need for a written guide ... such had been in existence in Upton.19 There was recognition that much depended on the appointment of capable Prefects. There was an objection to turning to the Rector even in small things, but it was again asserted that, even there, a little record should be kept and a ceiling to the punishments. They discussed the current punishment systems in Ferryhouse and Omeath and agreed Corporal punishment was judged the most humiliating of the lot, and the least effective. This meeting in 1968 was, in short, debating the need for the regulation of corporal punishment and was reaching conclusions that had been contained in the 1933 guidelines. Notwithstanding the acknowledgement that it was humiliating and ineffective, the use of corporal punishment continued in Ferryhouse for a further 25 years, until its abolition by the School in 1993. Remarks on corporal punishment by the Department of Education Inspector 3.126 The Department of Education Inspector, Mr Cobalt,20 touched on the subject of corporal punishment and recorded his concern at its continued occasional use in Ferryhouse. In an addendum to his General Inspection Report of Ferryhouse dated 30th May 1979, Mr Cobalt noted that corporal punishment was still used occasionally, and added that he had not examined the facts of its usage. Mr Cobalts Inspection Reports for the following and successive years, noted the sanctions that applied to the children. A report dated 26th October 1980 listed the sanctions applied to the children as: (a) loss of TV; (b) loss of pocket money; and (c) early bed/loss of home leave. The reports of 1981, 1983 and 1984 are in similar terms, and make no reference whatever to the use of corporal punishment.
16 17 18 19 20
3.119
3.120
3.121 3.122
3.123
3.124
3.125
3.127
This This This This This
is is is is is
a pseudonym. a pseudonym. a pseudonym. believed to be a reference to the Upton punishment book. a pseudonym.
83
Circular 9/82 prohibiting the use of corporal punishment in national schools 3.128 In January 1982, the Department of Education issued Circular No 9/82 that prohibited the use of corporal punishment in national schools. On 7th May 1982, Fr Stefano, Resident Manager in St Josephs, Ferryhouse wrote to the Department on the issue of corporal punishment: While the general practice, philosophy and ideas of the school would be against the use of any form of corporal punishment, nevertheless, because of the nature of the work in which we are involved, there may be certain occasions when the Manager or his Deputy (Care or Education) might feel that some form of corporal punishment should be used. 3.129 He went on to ask the Department for its views as to whether or not Circular 9/82 nullified the Managers powers under the 1908 Act and 1933 Rules. Despite the considerable reforming zeal that had led to the rebuilding of the nineteenth-century institution, and to numerous other reforms, the abandonment of corporal punishment it seemed was a step too far for him. Various officials in the Department considered Fr Stefanos letter. One such official, a Miss N Fhearghail, set out her views on the issue of corporal punishment in an internal memorandum dated 11th May 1982 and entitled Corporal Punishment in Special Schools. She wrote: ... in my view Circular 9/82 only covers the conduct of the children while they are in the national school. It does not cover out of school activities. Even within the school the Rules which were approved under the Act may hold precedence. I think we would need to consult the Chief State Solicitor. 3.131 However, the issue lay dormant in the Department for a number of months until March 1983, when Miss N Fhearghail, in a memorandum addressed to Mr O Crodhain, noted that Fr Stefano Crodhain referred the matter to Mr MacGleannain who, never got an answer to his query. Mr O by memorandum dated 14th April 1983, replied: This matter needs to be cleared up. I think policy should be to prohibit corporal punishment. Undoubtedly, however, members of staff in these schools have to restrain youngsters physically and a thin line divides physical restraint from corporal punishment. 3.132 The matter was referred to the Chief State Solicitor. By letter dated 9th June 1983, the Deputy Assistant Chief State Solicitor advised that rules made under the 1908 Act took precedence over the rules for national schools, as they had the force of statute, while the rules for national schools, although they had been judicially noticed, were not made pursuant to an Act. He suggested that the matter should now be rectified by the provision of rules made pursuant to Section 3 of the Act of 1941 for all certified industrial schools. On 3rd August 1983, the Department of Education passed on to Fr Stefano the advices received from the Deputy Assistant Chief State Solicitor. They wrote: The present Rules and Regulations for Certified Industrial Schools were approved by the Minister some fifty years ago and have, to a great extent, become out-moded in practice. I would be grateful if you would give earnest consideration to the question of statutory Rules for the conduct of your school and would draw up a schedule of Rules deemed appropriate. It would be helpful if a copy of these draft Rules were forwarded to the Department not later than the 30th September, 1983. 3.134 Fr Stefano gave evidence that nothing was done about this request. The School was being rebuilt, and the management were apparently too busy to respond. It would seem that the use of corporal punishment continued in Ferryhouse. The report of Mr Cobalt of 13th April 1989 records that the strap had been given to one boy and was witnessed. 84 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
3.130
3.133
3.135
He wrote that a positive decision should be made about its use as a punishment for out-of-school misbehaviour. In a note attached to the end of the 1989 Report, he advised that the use of corporal punishment be discontinued as the evidence is that is does not change deprived boys in their anti-social behaviour ... and my experience confirms that. 3.136 In July 1989, a draft Circular (1/89) was prepared which, on the face of it, imposed a ban on the use of corporal punishment in industrial schools operating under the terms of the 1908 Act. In evidence, Fr Stefano said he had no recollection of ever receiving this circular. He believed that, if he had seen it, he would have remembered it, and would have discussed it. He presumed he would have ceased the use of corporal punishment. Fr Stefano said that, when the 1989 draft circular first came to his attention at a recent meeting in preparation for his evidence to the Commission, they carried out an extensive trawl through the Ferryhouse documentation relating to this period, but failed to disclose the original. The issue remained a live one in the early 1990s. At the end of a document concerning requests for amendments to the School rulebook, dated 12th April 1990, there is a handwritten comment by the Inspector: It is noted that corporal punishment can still be administered in St Josephs. I raised this matter with the Director on my recent visit to the school and he would be strongly opposed to any move to alter this rule. 3.138 At a meeting in 1993, the senior management team at Ferryhouse took a decision to stop using the strap. What emerges from the foregoing is that there was concern about the use of corporal punishment in Ferryhouse during the period of time under investigation, and attempts appear to have been made in the late 1970s and 1980s to devise a policy in respect of its use, but there was little, if any, regulation of this policy by the Department of Education. Ferryhouse was given leeway to continue its use.
3.137
3.139

3.140 1. Corporal punishment was the option of first resort for problems. Its use was pervasive, excessive, unpredictable and without regulation or supervision and for these reasons became physically abusive. 2. Frequent corporal punishment was the main method of maintaining control over the boys and it created a climate of fear that was emotionally harmful. 3. The system of discipline was the same as in Upton and the Rosminians accept that there was excessive corporal punishment in Ferryhouse. 4. Young and inexperienced staff used fear and violence to assert authority. Severe punishments were inflicted for a wide range of acts and omissions. 5. Rules and regulations governing corporal punishment were not observed and a punishment book was not maintained. The rules were regarded as merely guidelines, with no provision made by the Department of Education for sanctions and reprimands being issued to schools that ignored them. They were therefore ignored with impunity. 6. Excessive, unfair and even capricious violence did lasting damage to many of the boys in Ferryhouse. 7. For most of the period under review, boys were punished for bed-wetting and were subjected to nightly humiliation, degradation and fear. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 85
Sexual abuse
3.141 Two religious members of the Rosminian Institute and one layman were convicted of sexual abuse of boys in Ferryhouse. Another religious who served in Ferryhouse was convicted of a crime committed elsewhere, on a boy who had previously been a resident of Ferryhouse and who was then living in another Rosminian institution. These three religious offenders served in senior positions in Ferryhouse and the layman was a volunteer there for different periods of years between 1968 and 1988. The fact that sexual abuse occurred was not in dispute. The issue that the Committee had to decide was whether the abuse was systemic, related to failures of the Institution or of management, or whether the abuse was to be viewed as episodic acts perpetrated by individuals, unrelated to the nature of the Institution and its management. The most revealing evidence about sexual abuse came from Br Bruno,21 who worked as a Prefect in Ferryhouse in the latter half of the 1970s, and who was convicted in 1999 of a number of counts of serious sexual assault on four young men when they were boys in Ferryhouse. Br Brunos account described how he committed systematic and repeated abuse of boys during the four years that he was a Prefect in Ferryhouse. He gave candid evidence at a private hearing about his modus operandi, how he was able to escape detection (which surprised even himself), and how he was able to frighten boys and prevent them from reporting him or talking about him. He was frank about the nature of his acts, the circumstances in which he committed them, and the extent of what he did. His account of his deeds, and what enabled him to perpetrate them, provided an insight into the behaviour of a child sexual abuser. He operated in the late 1970s, when living conditions and the building itself were better than in the old Ferryhouse. His testimony on what enabled him to abuse for so long may well be relevant to the Institution at other times in the past, when conditions were more likely to facilitate such coercive, furtive and abusive behaviour.
3.142
3.143
3.144
3.145
Convictions
Br Bruno 3.146 Br Bruno was arrested in 1996 and charged with counts of buggery, indecent assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, in respect of four people who had been in his care at Ferryhouse between 1975 and 1979. He was the Brother in charge of A group comprising some 36 to 40 boys aged between nine and 11 years. He appeared before the Circuit Criminal Court in 1999, pleaded guilty to the offences charged and was sentenced to a term of nine years imprisonment with the last three suspended. Br Brunos activities as a perpetrator of sexual abuse in Ferryhouse came to light in the late 1970s, following which he was dismissed from the Order, but the case was not reported to the Garda until the mid-1990s. The disclosure occurred when two boys who had absconded from the Institution were hitching a lift. The Resident Manager, Fr Stefano, saw them on the road, picked them up and brought them back to Ferryhouse. As they travelled back to the School, one of the boys broke down, and told Fr Stefano that Br Bruno was at him. This had an immediate impact on Fr Stefano and, when they got back to the School, he brought the boy to his office, cautioned him about the seriousness of what he had said, and sought details from him. The boy stuck by his story and said that another
21
3.147
3.148
86
boy would confirm what he was saying. He said that Br Bruno had started to abuse him when he was in his unit, but that the abuse had continued when he was transferred to the senior group. 3.149 The other boy was sent for, and Fr Stefano described how the two boys sat in my office and unfolded to me a most horrific story of what had been happening to them. The boys told Fr Stefano story after story of cruelty and abuse. The worst, as far as he was concerned, was the abuse of one of the boys during the Popes visit to Ireland in 1979. The whole school went to see the Pope in Limerick, except for one of the two boys who was not allowed to go because of his record of absconding. Br Bruno volunteered to stay back and supervise him. The boy told Fr Stefano that, when the rest of the boys left, this Brother came and raped me in my bed. Fr Stefano said that he had never suspected Br Bruno; indeed, he found him a very enthusiastic member of staff. His dedication to the work seemed unquestionable: this was a man who seemed to be the last in bed and the first up every day. Nevertheless, when the allegation was made, Fr Stefano began to see it all very differently: ... the picture that comes to mind always to me is of a huge jigsaw puzzle that you are reasonably happy with but that there is a piece missing and while I had no suspicions of him, the minute those words were spoken, it was as if somebody had put the final piece in the jigsaw and all these activities that he was involved with started to make sense. 3.151 He gave the example of an earlier discussion, at which one of the other Prefects said that a boy had heard someone in the dormitory the night before, and Br Bruno had volunteered to check it out. The same night that the boys disclosed the abuse, Fr Stefano drove the short distance to Glencomeragh to report to the Provincial. He returned to the School where he met Br Bruno the next day. Br Bruno initially denied the allegations but, when he was told that the boys were willing to confront him, he confessed. Br Bruno left the School and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Dublin. Shortly afterwards, he was dismissed from the Order. Br Brunos career in Ferryhouse began in the mid-1970s and he became a Prefect, which he continued to be until the events of 1979. As Prefect, he was in charge of A Group consisting of 36 to 40 boys aged between nine and 11 years. Br Bruno sexually abused numerous boys during his time in Ferryhouse. He had easy access to and exclusive control over his group, who were located in the junior dormitory, which was separate from the other residents and Brothers. This dormitory was located on the second floor of the east wing. Br Brunos own room was located off the boys dormitory. These arrangements had been put in place in the late 1960s, to replace the old system of two large dormitories housing junior and senior boys. The boys were now separated into age groups in three smaller dormitories, each accommodating up to 80 boys. Br Brunos preference was for pubescent boys, whom he selected with considerable care. Under the pretence of checking whether they had wet their beds, he approached their beds at night. He would fondle their genitals to see if they became aroused; weekends were more suitable times, because there were fewer people around. When he had fixed on a boy whom he intended to abuse, he waited until the weekend and then gave the boy an anti bed-wetting pill that he knew would have a soporific effect. He would spend some time with his colleagues in the west wing, where he would socialise and have a drink, before returning to the dormitory where he carried the boy to his private room and sexually abused him before returning the boy to bed. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 87
3.150
3.152
3.153
3.154
3.155
3.156
3.157
Br Bruno began his evidence to the Committee with some initial hesitation; he began to imply that he had pleaded guilty to offences he had not committed. He said: I fondled them in their bed ... It began when I was moved to the A unit, when I was checking beds at night time for wetting ... Just by touching it started ... The boys didnt mind, they didnt stop me ... I knew it was wrong but I continued ...
3.158
At that stage, he denied anal rape: I never penetrated ... I would be sexually excited, yes ... it just ended at that ...
3.159
The Chairperson then spoke to him about the need for him to give a full and honest account, without trying to recant or change evidence accepted in court. After a brief adjournment for legal consultation, the hearing resumed, and Br Bruno gave a very different account of events. He now said: [That boy] was one of the boys that I pleaded guilty to in my criminal trial ... I pleaded guilty to buggery. I did take him into my bed and penetrated but not in a full extent but I did bugger, I did penetrate him ... I told the Garda that I had abused [the other boy] ... I took him to my bed and I penetrated him ... [The third boy], I pleaded guilty to fondling, abusing him in that way.
3.160
He acknowledged that these acts of abuse happened on more than one occasion. He also accepted that these were not the only boys that he sexually abused: There was one or two other boys that I took there but the names are gone from me at the moment.
3.161
He was asked to give some estimate as to when the sexual abuse began, and he replied: The fondling and the feeling at bedtime went on a few months after I taking charge of the group. It went on at that time. The serious matters that were dealt with in the criminal trial went on in ... [1978/79] ... up to that moment that the Superior ... it was reported to the Superior and he called me in and I admitted to it ... Four, five boys, I think.
3.162
He took charge of the dormitory in the mid-1970s, and until Fr Stefano confronted him in December 1979 there were some four years of abuse. When asked to estimate the number of boys he had abused, he answered that, if he was being asked to estimate the numbers he had groped and interfered with, It could be dozens, yes ... Yes it would be dozens. When asked to try to put a more precise figure on it he replied, over maybe 20, over a period of years. The fondling took place during the week. The acts of penetration tended to occur at weekends. He explained: I fondled them ... I carried them to my room ... left them in my bed and fondled them ... I attempted myself to penetrate them ... It was a weekend basis. Friday, Saturday night ... I was able to go over to the community room ... in the community room we would have a social evening and I would have a drink.
3.163
3.164
There was a community room upstairs in the west wing, where the members of the Order could relax. It had comfortable chairs, a cocktail cabinet and a big television screen. Here, he would have a couple of pints of Guinness and perhaps a couple of shorts: I may have been a bit unsteady, but not falling down ... they would know that I had some drink taken. He would then return to his room where he would also take a little tipple from bottles of spirits received as gifts that he kept there. He added: I should never have been left in the unit on my own, solely on my own and isolated from the rest of the community. There was no such thing as shift work, night staff, night staff 88 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
even for a weekend, all of those things should have been in place in a group like the group that I was in. 3.165 He then described what happened when he returned to the dormitory and took a boy to his room: ... I left them in the bed and I fondled them and penetrated them ... I felt they were asleep and they didnt know ... On waking up they just remained limp, I am sure terrified of what was going on and preferred to remain in that state ... Those boys that I took to my room were boys that were sleeping ... I selected those ... I felt they were what I wanted. It was weekly ... those boys were terrified during that period when I took them to my room. 3.166 He went on to explain why the boys were so deeply asleep: Some of them were on medication for bed-wetting ... They took their tablet and it made them sleepy ... All the bed-wetters would be on them ... The nurse would allot the nightly take every day to me and I would distribute it to them ... I would have maybe two or three days supply of the tablet for all of the boys. 3.167 As he knew which boys had taken a tablet, he knew which ones would be drowsy. These tablets allowed him to choose those boys who would be asleep and remain asleep. When he was finished with a boy, he took him back to his own bed in the dormitory. His activities show how planned and pre-meditated the abuse was. The abuse continued undetected for four years. When asked whether he was concerned that the boys would tell, he said: At the back of my mind you would thinkyou would know very well that it would come out and somebody would reveal it and they did. 3.169 He told the Investigation Committee, I am sure the other boys in the dormitory knew what was going on. However, such was his control over them that they never told. In Fr Stefanos words, quite a lot of the boys who went through his unit ... have told me of the control that he was able to keep when he locked that door at night time ... he had them terrorised. A number of reasons as to how the abuse continued were explored with Br Bruno. He agreed that, in his early days as Prefect, he frequently used corporal punishment: Yes, I hit the boys, I struck the boys. I found certainly at the beginning I had no other way of keeping control, keeping order, keeping day to day things running. 3.171 He agreed that he had a reputation as a Prefect and the boys were afraid of him, and that this facilitated his ability to do these things without being reported. He agreed that the job of Prefect with complete unsupervised control over 35 to 40 boys was a corrupting influence: It changed me to a different type of person ... a monster person that was the effect that it had. 3.173 Br Bruno claimed that he had no attraction to boys before he went into Ferryhouse: In all my years before I went into the Rosminians I had no attraction towards the younger boys ... I had my girlfriends up to going to the Rosminian Order ... the boys thing just started when I went into Ferryhouse. 3.174 Yet, within Ferryhouse, he was unable to control his attraction to pubescent boys and claimed that he tried to get help: CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 89
3.168
3.170
3.172
I went for advice before with [a senior member of the Order] and we chatted. At the end ... at the breaking point that I went to him and discussed it with him. I discussed it with him after coming out of the Order too. 3.175 The Investigation Committee was unable to corroborate this assertion. He remained convinced, moreover, that other members of the Community knew what he was up to. He also asserted that it was widespread. He explained: Like when other boys were talking and were giving out about other members of the Community, I felt they were being abused by other members. 3.176 He was asked if he thought it was fairly safe to do it because it was almost permitted within the Institution, and he replied, Yes .... He later added: They [the boys] were mentioning that other members of the community were abusing the boys. This assertion, that abuse was so widespread that it seemed to be permitted, does not accord with the way in which Fr Stefano took instant action when the abuse perpetrated by Br Bruno was disclosed to him. However, Br Bruno had been abusing for about four years before it was reported to Fr Stefano, who was completely unaware that he was living with an abuser. A complainant who was in Ferryhouse in the mid to late 1970s described Br Bruno as just bad ... he was just evil out and out. He told the Committee he first met Bruno in the mid-1970s in Woodstown, in Waterford. This was before Br Bruno had joined the Rosminians, and he was visiting Woodstown with his friend who was a priest. The complainant described how Br Bruno approached him when he was washing his shirt in the sink and, under the pretence of helping to wash the shirt, started rubbing his chest and: From that he went on to put his hands down towards my privates and, basically, that was the first time I met [Br Bruno]. 3.180 His next encounter with Br Bruno occurred when the latter was posted to Ferryhouse. Under the pretence of checking for bedwetting, Br Bruno would fondle him under the bed sheets and bring him to the toilet, where he would start massaging, that's your privates like, and it would start from there. He also described how Br Bruno would take him to his bedroom and then he would sexually abuse him. He said there was no penetration involved. The abuse happened regularly every couple of weeks, so regularly in fact that the witness thought it was normal: I thought this is the way life is, this happens to everybody. The complainant also witnessed others being abused. He described how, on occasion, he walked into Br Brunos room on the way to the toilet and saw that Br Bruno had two guys there and they were playing with each other. He also attested to the fear Br Bruno used to instil in him. He had an odd tactic of sticking drawing pins into his thigh whenever he saw Br Bruno approaching. He explained, It just took away the fear. Me being in pain was better than the fear and the fear of him. He described how Br Bruno would never leave him alone with any visitors, as he might have to prevent him from telling them about the abuse. Br Bruno denied he had abused this witness, but the witnesss recollections mirrored the known events. As the witness claimed, Br Bruno did visit Woodstown before he became a Brother and he did reappear as a member of the Order. The events described in the dormitory and in the Brothers room are not dissimilar to the account Br Bruno gave of his own activities. 90 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
3.177
3.178
3.179
3.181
3.182
3.183
Another complainant from the same period described a similar incident of nocturnal intrusion into his bed. He was in A group which was supervised by [Br Bruno]. He said that one night, a couple of weeks after he had arrived at the school he woke up in pain. He was being sexually abused . He could not see who it was and he started to scream. This woke the boy next to him who turned on the light. The complainant blamed this boy but he denied it. The next day, the mystery of the nocturnal intruder was solved. The complainant told another boy what had happened, and the boy said, This is the start of it. He wont stop ... It will go on and on. He said that other boys told him It was Br Bruno himself, he does it to all of us. The complainant ran away and, on his return to the School, said that he had reported the fact that Br Bruno was at his bed to two staff members, but nothing happened. Neither could recall this complainant reporting the matter to them. The witness also gave a vivid account of seeing boys being carried to Br Brunos room: He would come out of his room, late at night, he would go to his bed, that bed, he would go into the back dormitories, he would come back out, sometimes carrying a boy. The boys would be asleep. Their limbs would be hanging down like so (indicating), their head to one side and he would be carrying them in his arms, he would be bringing them to his room. The next morning you would enquire as to where the boy was and you would be told that he was sick, he wont be in school today.
3.184
3.185 3.186
3.187
3.188
He described how Br Bruno would give the boys tablets for bed-wetting. Sometimes, he would give them just one each, and on other occasions he would give them three. These had the effect of causing the boys to go to sleep. He recalled one occasion when he did not take the tablets and how he woke later that night to find Br Bruno sexually abusing him: I started crying and Br Bruno came up to me and he said to me What's wrong with you, child, you are dreaming, child, go to sleep. That next morning when I was in the toilet and I came out and I was after getting dressed and everything, I went to get the tablets and they were gone. I don't know where they had gone to, they were gone.
3.189
The number of complainants who gave evidence about Br Brunos activity was not indicative of the number whom he abused. He molested dozens of boys. He himself remarked that the only ones he was likely to have recalled were those whom he raped. None of the four boys who were named in the indictment as being victims of this crime gave evidence before the Investigation Committee. It would appear that the number of boys who he raped over the period of four years when he was in Ferryhouse was greater than he remembered. In a trial that took place in the mid-1990s, a victim named in Br Brunos indictment himself faced trial on charges of sexual abuse of children. Mr Cumin22 pleaded guilty to raping a 14-year-old boy. He had previously been convicted of rape in Britain. In mitigation, his counsel submitted that he had been sexually abused while in care, and this abuse had had disastrous consequences on his own sexuality. The court jailed him for six years. The lessons learned from this case can be applied to the question posed at the start of this section: was the abuse systemic, related to failures of the Institution or of management, or was it episodic, namely, acts perpetrated by an individual, unrelated to the nature of the Institution and its management?
22
3.190
3.191
91
3.192
Fr Stefanos comment provides the best clue and may be repeated: The picture that comes to mind always to me is of a huge jigsaw puzzle that you are reasonably happy with but that there is a piece missing and while I had no suspicions of him, the minute those words were spoken, it was as if somebody had put the final piece in the jigsaw and all these activities that he was involved with started to make sense.
3.193
The fact that the Institution had a history of keeping the stories of known abusers secret must have contributed to Fr Stefanos unawareness of the real possibility of abuse in a residential institution for young boys. Because the archives recording the discovery of previous abusers were not available, this meant the Institution could not learn from the past.
3.194
This case shows how easy it was for an abuser to gain access to the boys in Ferryhouse. Br Brunos activities went undiscovered for four years, despite the fact that many boys were raped and a much greater number were fondled and groomed in his selection process. Br Brunos activities happened at a time when other sexual abuse was happening in Ferryhouse and when improper access to the boys was a feature of the Institution. The extent of these activities suggests that boys felt unable to report abuse.
Mr Garnier23 3.195 Mr Garnier was convicted of sexually abusing a 15-year-old boy from Ferryhouse Industrial School on a number of dates in the mid-1970s. Mr Garnier lived and worked in Clonmel and was a voluntary worker in the School for many years. He had free access everywhere in the Institution, even in the dormitories when the boys were going to bed and afterwards. He had particular contact with C Group, which was managed by Br Leone, who was a friend of his. Another man from Clonmel, named Mr Tablis,24 had similar access on the basis of his friendship with Fr Lucio, the Resident Manager. Fr Paolo recalled Mr Garnier and Mr Tablis being there in the 1970s, but did not remember them being there in the mid-1960s, although it seems that Mr Garnier certainly had access over many years, which could indeed have extended back to that earlier period. Fr Paolo was suspicious of the two men. He thought that they had no business being in any of the dormitories, and made sure that they did not come to his group, A Group. Although Fr Paolo was careful in what he said about these men, he agreed that it was inappropriate for them to be in any dormitory, and that his concern would have been less if they had been in the downstairs gym or a ground-floor recreation area. Despite Fr Paolos concern about the incursions into the boys dormitory, and his determination to keep such men out of the one under his control, he did not interfere in what another Brother was doing. The convention of allowing colleagues to run their empires as they thought fit remained paramount, even when the safety of the boys was an issue. Fr Stefano arrived in the mid-1970s. He said that Mr Garnier was someone who had an involvement with Ferryhouse for many years and that his access was in two main areas. On Sunday nights, he used to come and play cards with the boys and he would go up along to the dormitory with them, it would be mainly the senior dormitory, from what I recollect. He never heard
23 24
3.196
3.197
3.198
3.199
92
anyone make a complaint about Mr Garnier and did not at the time think that there was anything inappropriate in his having access to dormitories. He never had any reason to suspect anything wrong was going on. He said local community helpers were needed and appreciated in Ferryhouse, and the two men were accepted in that context. They had a long history of involvement in the School probably because there were so few people to do anything. Outsiders were involved in the sports day and in fundraising, and people were in and out all the time. He said that it could happen that the Brother in charge of the senior dormitory would be required to drive a distance of some miles to collect a boy who had absconded, for example. In such circumstances, he thought it was likely that Mr Garnier would have volunteered to stay on. Fr Stefano accepted that he was perhaps somewhat nave, in not being uncomfortable about the access that Mr Garnier was permitted. He suggested that, if there was an error of judgement or a lack of alertness, it should be seen against a background of involvement by the local people in helping Ferryhouse. 3.200 There is an enormous difference between involvement by the community in the running of the Institution, and allowing outsiders to enter the boys dormitories and to spend time there on a frequent basis. Clearly, the Brother in charge of the dormitory, Br Leone, should not have permitted the access, but he happened to be the contact in the School on whom Mr Garnier relied, and who introduced him to the School in the first place. Mr Garnier told the Garda how his contact with Ferryhouse began: I know Br Leone for years. A lot of the boys went to the technical school. That is boys from Ferryhouse School. I saw Br Leone bringing them to school and I got chatting to them. Thats how it started roughly 28 years ago. 3.202 Fr Paolo told the Committee he was uneasy about what was going on, and while he would not have allowed the man into the dormitory under his charge, he did not make his concerns known. As in many other cases, Brothers did not interfere with what other Brothers were doing. Before Fr Stefano took over as Resident Manager in the mid-1970s, Fr Lucio was in charge, and he permitted similar access to his friend, Mr Tablis. With such connections over such a period of time, it is unlikely that any action would have been taken, even if Fr Paolo had reported his unease about the access enjoyed by these outsiders. Fr Ricardo25 was present in the School for two periods during the 1970s and 1980s. He gave evidence to the Committee, and he also did not see anything inappropriate about Mr Garniers access. He said: He used to play a lot of cards, particularly Friday evening and he would help Br Leone in playing cards, that basically was his job. Sometimes he would lock up the unit or come up with Br Leone and he might come up to the dormitory but generally he would go off then before Br Leone would turn the lights out. And I think Br Leone would have seen Mr Garnier, or [Christian name], as I would have known him, as some kind of a help, to help him to get the boys to bed. 3.205 Mr Garnier confirmed to the Garda the level of his involvement with the School. He visited regularly about once a week. He would play table tennis with the boys, and would play cards; he worked at the School sports day and helped with the pantomimes and the Strawberry Fair. In addition, he said: Id take some boys out for drives. About four or five boys at a time. I had my own car. We went to Youghal once and the steam rally in Upton.
25
3.201
3.203
3.204
93
3.206
The boys would also visit him in his house in Clonmel after visiting the cinema, and he would give them a drink of minerals and maybe some money. He mostly remembered the boys in the older group in Br Leones care who were about 14 or 16 years old. He was with the seniors more than the juniors but he had contact with all the groups. He bought sweets and gifts for the boys. Mr Garnier denied allegations made by boys that he had fondled and masturbated them, but he did admit having had sexual contact with two boys in Ferryhouse. The first one happened at a time when Br Leone was in charge of the group, and Fr Lucio was the Resident Manager. The incident happened in the C Group dormitory. He described how he had kissed the boy and sexually abused him. The abuse with the other boy followed the same format. He was in C Group, which was under the stewardship of Br Leone. A witness resident in Ferryhouse in 1970s alleged in his evidence to the Committee that Mr Garnier sexually abused him. Mr Garnier was not represented at the hearing. The witness said that Mr Garnier was a friend of Br Leone and that he would visit the School regularly. He spent a lot of time in the junior dormitory and only left when the lights were turned off: He used to come into the school and he would be up in the juniors, upstairs with the juniors. He would be buying sweets, he would buy torches and he would buy different things for you.
3.207
3.208
3.209
3.210
He also visited Mr Garniers house in Clonmel: We had gone to the cinema and we were on our way back, thumbing likewise. [Mr Garnier] pulls up and says you can come up to the gaff for a few cigarettes. Deadly, you know. We went up and he gave us 10 smokes.
3.211
The abuse that he alleged happened followed a similar pattern to that admitted by Mr Garnier in his Garda statement, which he confirmed as correct through his solicitor. Mr Garniers involvement with the School continued throughout this complainants time there. Br Sergio26
3.212
3.213
Br Sergio was convicted of sexual assault in 2002. The offences were committed at locations in Clonmel and Dublin in the early 1990s. Br Sergio received a sentence of three and a half years imprisonment. The victim of one assault was a former resident of Ferryhouse, who was living in the Rosminian aftercare centre in Dublin at the time the assaults took place. He was aged 18 at the time of the first assault. The accused, Br Sergio, worked in the aftercare centre. The victim complained to the Rosminian authorities, and the Provincial confronted Br Sergio with the allegations. Br Sergio admitted his guilt and was immediately removed from the centre. He was admitted for treatment at Our Lady of Victory in Stroud in the mid-1990s, and he was treated there for a number months, although he remained in follow-up care for a number of years. He applied for and was granted a dispensation from the Order. In the late 1990s, the victim of the sexual assault contacted the Rosminians, to tell them that he was reporting the matter to the Garda. The Rosminians informed the Department of this, and told them that they would co-operate fully with any Garda inquiry. Br Sergio had previously worked in Ferryhouse from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s. In his evidence to the Committee, he said that he had been appointed Prefect in the late 1970s, when he was given charge of B Group, which was composed of about 37 boys aged between 10 and
26
3.214
3.215
94
12. He took over from Fr Antonio, who had been transferred to A Group to replace Br Bruno who had left the School suddenly, as a result of the discovery of his activities as a sexual abuser. He became aware of the reason for Br Brunos departure a week or two after his departure. Given the age of the boys in his group, and the length of time he was in charge, his group would have contained many of the children who were sexually abused by Br Bruno or who were aware of his activities. 3.216 One complainant who was present in Ferryhouse in the late 1980s alleged that Br Sergio sexually abused him. He told the Committee that he was taking a shower after he had been brought back to the School after attempting to abscond. Br Sergio was supervising him and molested him in the shower. He also described other less serious instances of improper behaviour, when Br Sergio put his hands on me. He alleged that Br Sergio would rub his knee while driving him down to see his relatives. Br Sergio denied these allegations, both through his counsel during the cross-examination of the witness and directly during his own evidence, when he described them as totally untrue. Br Sergio denied abusing children in Ferryhouse or even being attracted to them. When asked if he had inappropriate sexual feelings towards the young boys under your care, he replied, It would be very wrong to say that, it would be very wrong to say that. He was also very reluctant to talk about the treatment he had received in Stroud because of his abusive activities. He said that it was a very traumatic time and: I dont have any recollection of what I would have said or what and I dont have any papers left from it at all. 3.221 He was also uncomfortable about being asked about his knowledge of Br Brunos departure in the late 1970s. Br Sergio vigorously denied any abuse during the time when he was in Ferryhouse. His subsequent conviction cannot be regarded as evidence that he committed abuse at an earlier time and in different circumstances. Fr Valerio 3.223 Fr Valerio, a Rosminian priest, was convicted of assault, including indecent assault in respect of two boys who had been in his care in Ferryhouse in the early 1970s, when he was a Prefect in the School in charge of a group of boys. He received a suspended sentence. The trial judge took into account, in mitigation of sentence, the fact that the accused had himself been a pupil in Ferryhouse and had been sexually and physically abused there. The Court of Criminal Appeal agreed that the accused: came from a very difficult background a background which the Court is all too familiar with as representing a cycle of abuse which notoriously has gone on in cases of this nature from one generation to another and the respondent in this case was part of that rather dreadful cycle. 3.224 The first allegation of sexual abuse against Fr Valerio was made in the early 1980s, when a 15year-old boy from the United Kingdom complained to a priest there, Fr Penrose27, that Fr Valerio had attempted to embrace and caress him while he was on an Irish holiday with Fr Valerio, who was working in Wales at this time and the boy was one of his parishioners. Fr Penrose wrote to
27
3.217
3.218
3.219
3.220
3.222
95
the Provincial, who spoke to Fr Valerio. There is no record of how Fr Valerio responded to the allegation, but the Provincial left instructions for his successor as Provincial not to let Fr Valerio go to Wales again. 3.225 This allegation resurfaced in the early 1990s, when the victim contacted the Rosminians after seeing a television programme on clerical abusers. He inquired whether Fr Valerio was still a priest. When he was told that Fr Valerio was still in Holy Orders, he threatened to expose him in the media unless he left the priesthood. The Provincial, Fr Stefano, met Fr Valerio, who was now in parochial work, and he admitted his guilt. He was removed immediately and admitted to a psychiatric hospital and later to Our Lady of Victory, Stroud, for assessment and treatment. He was told that he would never be allowed to work in a position where he would have access to young people. In the early 1990s, he applied for, and was granted, a leave of absence (exclaustration) from the Order. In the mid-1990s, he applied to be laicised, and his application was granted. The Rosminians received further complaints of sexual abuse against Fr Valerio in the mid-1990s, and reported the matter to the Department of Education. Fr Valerios first involvement with Ferryhouse was in the mid-1950s when, at age nine, he was committed to the Institution by the courts. He remained there until the eve of his 16th birthday. He alleged in his Garda interview that he was sexually abused during his time there. After leaving, he joined the Order in the mid-1960s. He was posted to Ferryhouse as Assistant Prefect in the late 1960s. He took over charge of B Group, which was composed of boys aged between 14 and 15 years, from Fr Antonio. At the time, Br Andino28 was in charge of A Group, and Br Leone was in charge of C Group. As Prefect, he slept in a room just off the dormitory where the boys slept. He remained in this position until he left the School, four years later, to begin his studies for the priesthood. Other members of staff present during this period described him as a hardworking albeit strict Brother who seemed to me to have a great rapport with the lads in general. He was ordained in the late 1970s, and spent the next 10 years as a religious teacher. In the early 1990s, he was engaged in parochial work in Dublin and Wales. Fr Valerio did not give evidence to the Committee, he lives abroad, but he did have a legal representative present. Information about his activities can be ascertained from: the offences to which he pleaded guilty in court; statements of admission made to the Garda; admissions made to his Superiors in the Order; and concessions made by his counsel on his instructions at the private hearings. These sources make clear that he sexually abused at least seven children while he worked as a Prefect in Ferryhouse, and a further two children after he left the School. In a statement made to the Garda in the late 1990s, Fr Valerio admitted abusing boys in his group in Ferryhouse. However, he stressed that he never used violence. He told the Garda: It was possible that the likely place that I assaulted these boys was in my own private room in Ferryhouse. I would have masturbated these boys. These boys would then masturbate me ... After these acts were over I would have little conversation with them. 3.229 He described how he once brought two boys to his private room on the pretence that he wanted to give them a prize for swimming. The prize was a pair of swimming togs, which he gave to them and asked them to put on. He also described how he brought one of these boys to his room on another occasion and sexually assaulted him. The Garda interviewed him on a number of occasions, concerning a series of new allegations of sexual abuse that had been made against him. He accepted that he had sexually abused the two individuals in question, but differed in his account of the abuse. He stated that he engaged in
28
3.226
3.227
3.228
3.230
96
mutual masturbation with a boy, at his mothers house, after the boy had left Ferryhouse but he denied rape. Fr Valerio admitted that he had sexually abused the second person. The Garda subsequently interviewed this victim, who alleged that Fr Valerio abused him in Ferryhouse, but Fr Valerio denied that the abuse took place in the School. He told the Garda that, when he was studying for the priesthood in Dublin, he was sent to Ferryhouse on an errand and, while he was there, he was asked to take the boy to Dublin. Instead of taking the boy straight to Dublin, he took him to his home and sexually abused him there. 3.231 One of the victims whom Fr Valerio admitted abusing in Ferryhouse gave evidence. He was in the School in the early 1970s: My encounter with Valerio was more by chance than anything else, you know. I had an occasion, I believe, to come across a situation where he was quite violent to somebody else and I intervened. From that incident I was put to his room, told to go to his room, which I did. I waited for a little while and he came in, and just a rage, you know, a physical rage on him. He started getting my clothes off and, again, the same thing. It wasn't like Fr Daniele29 where it was more psychological, you know, more the fear over you, but Valerio was more the doing of the fear; the beating, the grunting, the dragging, the tearing. He was just like, I do not know, the eyes of him, he was like a man who was possessed, you know. He got me ... down and he beat my face off the ground. He done his best to penetrate me, I don't believe to this day he ever did it. 3.232 Another witness who was present in the early 1970s gave evidence that Fr Valerio started to abuse him when he was transferred to B Group. He said that the abuse happened regularly, about once a month, and that Fr Valerio would come up to his bed at night and get all pally pally with you and bring him up to his room where he was forced to perform oral sex. He said he was not the only one who was brought to Fr Valerios room at night. It happened regularly, and he believed all the boys were aware of what was going on. Fr Valerio was represented at this hearing by counsel, but did not cross-examine the witness. One witness said that one night, while he was crossing the yard, Fr Valerio saw him and called him into the office, where he tried to sexually abuse him. He refused to co-operate and was beaten as a result. He felt that he was singled out for punishment after that. During the cross-examination of this witness, counsel for Fr Valerio stated that Fr Valerio denied the allegation, and further: That he is certain that if any attempt at indecency occurred and he has admitted in other circumstances an offence of indecency, but he says in your case that if any attempt at indecency occurred it was never in the context of violence or associated with violence. 3.235 Another witness gave evidence that Fr Valerio abused him after he had left the School: Br Valerio, while I was actually in the School he never actually touched me but when I left School I was in my uncle's house ... and he appeared at the door one day and he asked me to come for a drive or whatever, I presumed I was going back to the School or something for some reason. He took me to his elderly mother's house ... and he asked me to stay the night or something there. I presumed I was going to have my own bedroom. I went to bed and he followed me in and he actually got into the same bed with me. I can't remember, I think it was sometime in the early 1970s, I can't remember the exact dates. It was around Easter or something. He put me to bed and he got in with me and he proceeded to fondle me and touch me and he actually masturbated me and made me
29
3.233
3.234
97
do the same thing to him. That was the one occasion. He never touched me before or after that. 3.236 Counsel for Fr Valerio did not accept or reject the allegations but, in his statements to the Garda, Fr Valerio accepted abusing other boys in this fashion.
3.237
This man served as a Prefect in Ferryhouse for four years until he left to study for the priesthood. He exploited his position for the purpose of sexual abuse. In Ferryhouse the system allowed individuals to gain absolute control over large groups of children so that they could do what they liked with little risk of detection.
Other cases
Mr Tablis 3.238 Mr Tablis was another outsider who worked in Clonmel and who had easy access to the boys in Ferryhouse. He does not seem to have had quite the same access to the dormitories as Mr Garnier had, but there are allegations against him in respect of sexual impropriety. Mr Tablis was a friend of Fr Lucio, the Resident Manager before Fr Stefano. Fr Ricardo described the situation as he recalled it: Mr Tablis , to my understanding, again was involved with [local club] and they used to bring the boys to ... a daily outing, where they would collect them in the cars and bring them to ... Mr Tablis would call alright, but I think he was a friend of Fr Lucios, he got to know the boys, but I think it was more got to do with the ... He wouldnt be playing cards so much, I wouldnt recall him being up in through the school generally. 3.239 Fr Antonio recalled that Mr Tablis was very friendly with Fr Lucio, he might take two or three of the lads off for a spin in the car and all that kind of stuff, but ... didnt have any specific role. Fr Paolo, who was a Prefect, was uneasy about Mr Tablis, just as he was about Mr Garnier. His determination to keep outsiders away from the boys in his group extended as much to Mr Tablis as it did to Mr Garnier. Mr Ducat30 3.241 A witness who was present in the School from the latter half of the 1970s alleged that he was sexually abused by Br Bruno and Mr Ducat. Mr Ducat was a local man who used to visit the School regularly, doing odd jobs. Fr Antonio gave evidence that Mr Ducat would regularly drive the boys to concerts. The witness alleged that, on one occasion, Mr Ducat asked him if he wanted to go for a drive in his car. He said that he would like to and they went for a drive around the football field. They then left the School grounds, and Mr Ducat stopped the car on the Waterford road: He pulled his car in and he tried to get me to commit a sex act for him ... I opened the door and ran back towards the School but to my surprise I was told I won't be going home again because I had tried to run away. Ducat had gone back and told whoever was in charge that I had tried to abscond. In fact I didn't try to abscond. There was no point reporting the matter because there was never anything done about the matters when you reported them. 3.242 Fr Stefano was asked about Mr Ducat. He said that he had never received a complaint about him, but that, in the late 1970s:
30
3.240
98
I was tipped off by a detective in Clonmel that they were worried about him, you know, and I sent for him immediately and he was never allowed in the gates of that School after that again.
Documented cases
Br Gilberto31 3.243 Br Gilberto served in Ferryhouse as Assistant Prefect in the mid-1940s, and he returned there as a student from the early to the mid-1950s. He was sent to Upton in the mid-1950s and, shortly afterwards, it was discovered that he had been sexually abusing boys there. A fuller account appears in the Upton chapter. Br Emilio32 3.244 Br Emilio joined the Rosminians in the late 1940s, but left the Novitiate at Kilmurry after only three months against [the] counsel of [his] Novice Master who thought his decision to leave imprudent and his judgement premature. He returned to the Rosminians three years later and was readmitted to the Novitiate in the early 1950s. He was sent to Ferryhouse in the mid-1950s, and he remained there until he was dismissed by decree of the Superior General some three years later. The reasons for his dismissal appears from the correspondence. In a letter to Fr Lucca,33 the Superior General in the mid-1950s, the Provincial wrote: I regret that there is another Brother Emilio who is stationed at the Clonmel house and who is very unsettled in his vocation and desires a dispensation from his triennial vows, which he took on the [two years ago]. His reasons for desiring the dispensation are that he cannot remain until his vows expire as he feels unhappy and discontented feels keenly the restrictions of obedience and has reasons for fearing that contact with boys would be a danger to him. This brother is very faithful and conscientious in the office entrusted to him at Clonmel and his external behaviour is good ... I offered him a change to another community but he would not accept that. I am satisfied that it is a case for a dispensation ... 3.246 Fr Lucca replied: As regards Br Emilio try to encourage him to be faithful to his vows until their expiry next September. 3.247 The Provincial, Fr Placido,34 was unhappy with this response and wrote again, setting out different reasons why he felt Br Emilio should be dispensed. Br Emilio was of good character but somewhat unbalanced, self willed, obstinate, he had an intense antipathy to the Prefect of the boys ... and caused great deal of trouble influencing unduly two other members of the Community against the Prefect, he is a trouble maker. Fr Placido concluded: I think it is urgent to obtain a dispensation from him since he is so unhappy and so unspiritual in his outlook and his presence at Clonmel would endanger still more the peace and happiness of the Community. 3.248 Fr Lucca replied: In view of the explanation you now give me regarding Br Emilio, I believe it is better that he goes. I am dispensing him from his Triennial Vows according to the faculties given me
31 32 33 34
3.245
This This This This
is is is is
a a a a
99
by Canon Law. I am very sorry but it is better for himself, and for the community that he goes. Send him home straight away, and may the Lord protect him and accompany him. 3.249 Despite the fact that the correspondence implies that the Brother was granted a dispensation, his personnel card records that he was dismissed. The full details of this case remain uncertain.
3.250
The fact that the Brother had reasons for fearing that contact with boys would be a danger to him, were not sufficient for the Superior General to grant dispensation. The Provincial then sought the dispensation on the ground that the Brother was disrupting the community and this did persuade the Superior General. The primary concern was about managing the Brothers case. The safety of the boys was not a consideration.
Br Lazarro35 3.251 Br Lazarro joined the Rosminians in the early 1950s. He was sent to Ferryhouse in the mid-1950s as Assistant School Prefect and was promoted to Prefect in the early 1960s. He left Ferryhouse after a year, when he was transferred to Omeath. The reason for his sudden removal from the School is apparent in a letter from Fr Placido, the Provincial, to Fr Lucca, the Superior General: The other case is that of Br Lazarro who was prefect and over a period had been very indiscreet. He left for Omeath ... You will fully appreciate ... how instant action is often necessary and the changes made are a cover up in some respects. 3.252 Fr Lucca replied: The distressing news conveyed in your letter ... shows that the Rector is very attentive and decisive. I approve the changes you had to make and I hope the guilty ones are convinced of the serious wrong they have done and are repentant. All this causes me great sadness especially [when I consider] the elder of the two. We really must work out our salvation in fear and trembling. I am well aware of the Brothers whom you have had to change in these painful circumstances and I pray the Lord will help them in their new positions ... I am sorry for you too who have had to make all these urgent and painful changes. Let us pray the Lord that nothing else of the like will occur. 3.253 A former resident, present in the School in the early 1960s, complained about Br Lazarro, alleging fondling of a sexual nature when the Brother was Prefect: He put his hand under the bedclothes and started, you know, all that. I suppose, you know, this is kind of bloody hard talking about this in front of women, I tell you that much now ... I dont know how long it went on for, I was in a position that my job was cleaning his bedroom and that, so it went on there as well ... 3.254 He said that the abuse continued up to the time that Br Lazarro disappeared. He was unable to remember the circumstances of the Brothers departure, but said This is only hearsay as well, I heard that someone complained about him. He said that the Resident Manager called him into his office and questioned him about the abuse and then punished him. He added, He used the strap on me, more or less saying it is your fault. The witness had difficulty recounting the abuse, and instead confirmed to the Committee the contents of the written statement that he had provided, which contained further detail about the sexual abuse that he alleged against Br Lazarro.
35
3.255
3.256
100
3.257
The witness was complimentary about the Resident Manager, despite the punishment he said that he received. He liked Fr Rafaele, and felt pleased that he had got rid of the offending Brother as quickly as he did. Fr Matthew Gaffney, Provincial of the Rosminians, made a written response to these allegations on behalf of the Order in 2001. He stated that the passage of time since the event described ... make it impossible for me either to respond to them or to investigate them adequately .... However, he added that if the allegations of sexual abuse made by the complainant are true, the abuse was shameful and horrific, and I should apologise for the terrible injury he must have suffered. In the time between the writing of that statement and the hearing of the complainants evidence, the Rome files came to light, containing documents which identified Br Lazarro as an abuser. As a result of this, the Order changed their response. At the commencement of his cross-examination of the complainant, counsel for the Rosminians said: We accept what you have said, we trust the truth of it completely. There is one very big thing which you have done today ... and it is a testament to the pain you suffered and others with you.
3.258
3.259
3.260
Most of the other former residents who referred to Br Lazarro did so in the context of physical abuse. However, one resident present in the School in the late 1950s recalled one occasion when another Brother instructed him to fetch the leather strap: I ran over to the office and I ran into the room, into the office; when I went into the office Br Lazarro was sitting down with a boy on his lap, a young boy ... he was only probably 10/11 ... he shouted at me, "what are you doing in here, what are you doing in here?" I said "Brother Donato36 sent me over for the leather, he wants to slap [a boy]". He gave me the leather and said I will see you afterwards.
3.261
Staff members who served in Ferryhouse at the time of Br Lazarros departure were unable to remember the circumstances of his leaving, which suggests that there was secrecy about the matter. It is nevertheless surprising that, in a small community, a sudden departure would not have generated a great deal of interest. Moreover, Fr Luccas letter cited above refers to talk and admiratio,37 suggesting there was indeed curiosity about the departure. In reply to an internal Rosminian survey, other members of the Order who were not in the School at the time recalled how they heard about the Br Lazarro episode. One priest, who was appointed teacher in Glencomeragh in the mid-1960s, stated in his questionnaire that he heard that Br Lazarro had been involved in improper behaviour and that the Rector, Fr Rafaele, was suspicious. Similarly, another priest described a conversation that he had with members of the Institute in the early 1960s, when he was a student in Glencomeragh, in which it was mentioned that Br Lazarro and Br Mario were somehow implicated with some boys at Ferryhouse. It is unclear from the documentation whether Br Lazarro was assigned to work directly with the boys or for the staff. In the case of Br Mateo,38 he was given a warning for sexually abusing children in Upton and transferred to a post at Omeath that did not bring him in contact with boys. The Rector of Omeath, Fr Lucio, was given instructions to be vigilant.
36 37 38
3.262
3.263
3.264
This is a pseudonym. Latin for surprise and wonder. This is a pseudonym.
101
3.265
Fr Lucio was still Rector when Br Lazarro was sent to Omeath, although he was replaced a few months after the transfer of Br Lazarro. When Br Lazarro joined Br Mateo in the early 1960s, there were two sexual abusers working in Omeath.
3.266
3.267
The Order was unsure how to respond to allegations of sexual misconduct by Br Lazarro but, once the correspondence in the Rome files was found, the Order accepted unreservedly the truth of what the former resident said and apologised to him. Although there is some doubt as to whether the two offenders worked together, it was particularly reckless to have two known sexual abusers working in proximity in an institution like Omeath.
Br Fausto39 3.268 Br Fausto was discovered to be sexually abusing boys in the mid-1950s, while he was serving in Upton. He was moved to Ferryhouse and his record card indicates that he was transferred during year. His position in Ferryhouse was that of assistant superintendent of the boys kitchen. He was transferred to Glencomeragh in the early 1960s. The account of how he was discovered to be a sexual abuser is told in the Upton section. Br Mario 3.269 Br Mario was transferred to Upton in the mid-1950s. In the early 1960s, he was sent to Ferryhouse, where he was appointed to an administrative role. He was discovered to have been sexually abusing boys during his posting in Ferryhouse in the early 1960s, to where he had been transferred following his term in Upton. Once again, Br Alfonso, himself then serving in Ferryhouse, was the discoverer. The full details of this case are given above, in the Rome files section.
The Department of Education investigation

3.270 Following the disclosure of sexual abuse perpetrated in 1979 by Br Bruno, Fr Stefano, having consulted the Provincial of the Order, made a decision to inform the Department of Education. He spoke to Mr Black,40 an official in the Department dealing with industrial schools, early in 1980. No contemporary written evidence of this reporting has been found and furnished to the Commission. Mr Black gave evidence to the Investigation Committee, where he recalled receiving a phone call from Fr Stefano early one morning and being told that he wished to report a sexual assault on a pupil. Mr Black accepted that his recollection of the detail of the conversation was not clear, but he recalled being told that Fr Stefano had caught one of their Brothers in bed with a boy, that the Brother was now on a train out of his way out of the place and that Fr Stefano was very distressed. Mr Black told the Committee that he told Fr Stefano to leave the matter with him, and he then contacted Mr Orange,41 the Secretary of the Department. He told Mr Orange exactly what Fr Stefano had relayed to him, and said that Mr Orange reflected on the matter for a few moments and decided that no further action was necessary, as the person responsible for the assault had been caught and was now removed from the School. He told the Committee that, as far as he could best recollect, that was what happened.
39 40 41
3.271
3.272
3.273
102
3.274
Mr Black said that he had not made a written record of the events. He accepted that he may have slipped up in not making a note. He gave two reasons for not doing so: first, he had not been told to; and secondly, he understood the School would have kept a record in the daily register of the School which, under the terms of the Act, should record notable events to be laid before the Inspector. There is no evidence available to the Investigation Committee indicating that Mr Orange, Secretary of the Department, kept a written record either. Mr Black also confirmed that he had not asked whether Fr Stefano had reported the matter to the Garda. He explained: If I was doing it today hindsight is grand, of course the first thing I would have said is Have you reported that to the Guards? That is the first thing I would have said to Fr Stefano. Secondly I would have taken a note, even if only to protect myself. So, mea culpa.
3.275
3.276
3.277 3.278
He confirmed that there was no follow-up investigation, as the culprit was found. Mr Black explained that, at the time, there were no guidelines in the Department as to how one should handle a complaint of this nature. He did, however, refer to a complaints procedure, which had been handed down by tradition in the Department, to deal with complaints from the woman who was making the complaint or whatever it was. It involved sending an investigator out to interview the people concerned. When asked why this procedure was not set in motion in relation to the complaint against Br Bruno, Mr Black replied: Because the thing was finished, the crime was solved, the culprit was on his way off ... What more could I do at that time? I should have now have told the Guards, of course, you know, because it was a crime, but it wasnt regarded in that light at that time.
3.279
3.280
The Departments Child Care Advisor, gave evidence that he became aware of Br Brunos dismissal, shortly after it occurred, through a phone call from Fr Stefano: To the best of my knowledge, I then reported that to Mr Black, .... who I think already knew of the issue, and he said that he would be dealing with the matter or to leave it with him at that stage.
3.281
He was asked what procedures were in place to deal with information received in this way: To record it and to consult with the managers, to make certain it is all on record ... If the Secretary had been informed, you would obviously go back and keep him updated of where you were with that situation. You would then consult with the Order as to where they were with the situation. Because they have ultimate responsibility for and I think there was, as far as possible, good communication.
3.282
It was put to him that one would expect the matter to go on record, and the record to go on file, because that is the way the Department worked and he responded: Yes. I expect there was a file in the Department, because when I am listening to the Chairman, my mind is thinking of not an incident like that, but there was an incident of a fire in Cavan many years ago and I know that incident is on a file. So that's the same sort of major incident we are talking of really. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 103
3.283
He added that he did not report the matter to the Garda: I certainly didn't inform the guards, as Mr Black was dealing with that situation and he said to me, "leave it with me". I left it with him. Maybe on hindsight that was wrong.
3.284
It is clear that the Department of Education did not conduct any investigation into the events that took place in Ferryhouse in 1980. Nor did the Department facilitate any such investigation, whether by the Garda Siochana, by the Department of Health, by the local Health Authority or by any other agency. The position of the Department of Education in relation to the investigation and reporting of abuse is set out in its document, Statement to Commission To Inquire Into Child Abuse dated 19th May 2006 and prepared in advance of the Phase III hearings. It states: In detailing the allegations of abuse in Clonmel and the response of the Department, it is worth noting the Departments position with regard to dealing with allegations of this nature was that the Department does not investigate allegations of abuse. This is a matter for the employers of the staff (in the case of St Josephs this would be the Rosminian Order), the Gardai and the health authorities. The responsibility of the Department would be to ensure that the welfare and safety of children was protected and that the matter had been reported to the appropriate authorities and that appropriate steps were being taken to investigate the matter and protection of children.
3.285
3.286
The Departments TN030 file was discovered to the Investigation Committee by the Department of Education. It had not been among the other documents disclosed earlier because it was an ongoing file, and was not in the archive, but among the files of senior Department staff. As Mr Black, former Principal Officer, told the Committee: They had in that Section in the Primary Branch, they had a safe for confidential files ... any offences with a suggestion of a sexual offence in them were kept there. I asked the girls about this thing ... one girl I knew in the section, Did you ever remember any cases like this? Oh no, we wouldnt see them at all. They never went down. There was a rule at one time that girls were not to see any things like that, they were very sensitive creatures.
3.287
It is the only file of the period covered by the inquiry that deals explicitly with the reporting and management of sexual abuse. The file cover bears the heading, Meeting with Clonmel Authorities Wednesday 4th December 1996. The earliest memorandum it contains is dated 9th December 1994. The file contains the Departments record of events involving sexual abuse commencing with the year 1994. Events of 1994
3.288
On 8th December 1994, Fr Antonio, the then Director of Ferryhouse, telephoned Mr Grey,42 Principal Officer in the Department of Education, in relation to allegations of sexual abuse made by a person who had attended Ferryhouse from 1971 to 1973. The alleged abuser was a member of staff in the School. Mr Greys memorandum was headed, Note for Secretarys Information Allegation of Sexual Abuse at St. Josephs Industrial School, Clonmel, in 1971/1973. This school is operated by the Rosminian Fathers, and it was dated 9th December 1994. The note recorded the details of the phone call. According to Fr Antonio, these allegations had been made to Fr Stefano, who was then the Provincial. The alleged abuser is not named in the note, but Fr Antonio is recorded as saying that he was a member of the Rosminian Order at the time. He had left Ferryhouse some years previously and was no longer a member of the Order.
42
3.289
104
3.290
Mr Grey recorded being told that Fr Stefano, on learning of the complaint, attempted to arrange a meeting with the person making the allegations but these attempts were rejected, and that the accuser had said he would be pursuing the matter through his solicitor. Mr Grey also recorded that the Order had held a Council meeting on 7th December 1994 to discuss the matter (see below), and that Fr Antonio was unwilling to provide further details over the phone but suggested that the Departments Child Care Advisor should call to St Josephs as soon as possible, where he would be given all the information available. Mr Grey further noted he had explained to Fr Antonio that the Order should report the matter immediately to the Garda Authorities, and should not wait until a complaint was received by the Garda from another source. He requested that Fr Antonio should provide him with a written report on the matter. Fr Antonio agreed to bring Mr Greys comments to the immediate attention of the Provincial, and stated that he considered that the course suggested by Mr Grey was the proper one in the circumstances. A handwritten note on the memorandum indicates that it was delivered to Mr Green,43 the Assistant Secretary, at 10.30am on 9th December 1994. The word sexclon is also handwritten on the top of the page. Mr Grey addressed a further memorandum to Mr Green in December 1995. It was in this memorandum, dated 4th December 1995, that Mr Grey became aware that the allegation was against Fr Valerio. The list of religious personnel indicated that, as of 1994/1995, Fr Valerio was still a member of the Order but seeking laicisation. In it, Mr Grey referred to his earlier memorandum and recorded that, on 8th December 1994, he was contacted by Fr Antonio, Director of St Josephs, who explained that the allegation was made by a person who had called to the Orders house in Dublin at 2.00am. The person in question was very drunk and somewhat incoherent at the time, but agreed to leave a telephone number at which he could be contacted, and indicated that he was reporting the matter to his solicitor. Several attempts to contact the person by telephone and by registered letter, sent on 9th December 1994, were unsuccessful. In this letter, the Provincial sought more information on the allegation, and told him he should take it to the proper authorities and that Fr X is available to meet him anytime. According to Mr Grey, Fr Antonio explained that he had had lengthy discussions with the Orders solicitor, and that he had been strongly advised that, in view of the circumstances surrounding the making of the allegation, he should take no further action at that stage. Rather, he should await receipt of a formal complaint. The Provincial had been advised that he did not currently have sufficient grounds to formally confront the alleged offender, and that any such action on his part could expose him to legal challenge from that source. Mr Grey made a note to the effect that he had been told that the alleged offender was effectively out of the Order for the last two years, a situation which was in the process of being formalised at present, and that the alleged offender was no longer dealing with children. It is clear from these memoranda that the Garda authorities were not notified by the Rosminian Order in 1994, and that Mr Grey and Mr Green were aware of this fact. It is not clear whether the Department officials were informed at this stage that Br Valerio had admitted: (1) the truth of a complaint of sexual abuse on a minor as far back as January 1980, to the Provincial; (2) that, in 1992, Br Andino had told him of a further incident circa 1990; and (3) that, when challenged in 1992, Br Valerio had admitted to him (Fr Stefano) that an incident had occurred when he was a scholastic in Clonmel (around 1968).
43
3.291
3.292
3.293
3.294
3.295
3.296
3.297
105
3.298
Fr Stefano was aware of all of these facts when contact was made with the Department in December 1994. Several questions arise from the management of this case. Did the solicitor who advised no action have all the information available on this Brother? This advice prevented the Order from following Mr Greys advice to report the matter immediately to the Garda. Was Mr Grey or Mr Green in a position to overrule the solicitor, whose main concern was for his client and not the abused children? Furthermore, having regard to what they actually knew about him, one might ask whether the Rosminians should have reported Br Valerios activities to the Garda when the opportunities arose in 1980, in 1992 and in 1994. The issue was obviously a matter of grave concern to the Rosminians, as they appointed a media consultant to advise them almost as soon as the sexual abuse was reported. He attended their Council meeting on 7th December 1994, and advised them that the media would savage anyone involved in sexual abuse and its concealment. The minutes record that he strongly recommended that the Provincial and his Council appoint a group who would take responsibility for investigating any allegations and make recommendations in turn to the Provincial and Council. He then advised them specifically about the allegations made by the former resident of Ferryhouse and discussed the civil and canonical rights of the accused. Events of 1995
3.299
3.300
3.301
On 29th November 1995, Fr Stefano met with Mr Grey, this time in relation to Br Bruno. At this stage, he also contacted the Garda Superintendent in Clonmel, to inform him of his 1979 discovery of Br Brunos activities and of the allegation of sexual abuse being made against Fr Valerio. In his undated statement furnished to the Commission, Fr Stefano put into context how this came about: I was serving as Provincial of the Irish Province of the Rosminians. The Protocol on Child Sexual Abuse was being developed by the Hierarchy and CORI. As we reviewed the Draft Document we decided that we should once again report these matters. Accompanied by Fr Vito44 I first travelled to the Department of Education, Athlone and reported the matter again to the then Principal Officer, Mr Grey and, in the afternoon of the same day, reported the matter to the Garda Superintendent at Clonmel Garda Station.
3.302
This is in line with his evidence during the Emergence Hearings, where it was conceded that, by then, there was already a Garda involvement not directly with us, but we knew, like, that Garda were asking questions, and that past pupils had been making complaints to the Garda. Mr Greys memorandum dated 4th December 1995 puts a slightly different perspective on Fr Stefanos motivation for this visit. In this memorandum, Mr Grey first points out that there were two distinct allegations. He deals with the 1994 allegation, goes on to identify Fr Valerio as the person being referred to, and alludes to the complainants failure to report the matter to the Garda. Mr Grey then recorded the meeting on 29th November 1995, at Fr Stefanos request, in connection with a second allegation, this time against Br Bruno. At that meeting, Fr Stefano advised Mr Grey that a former pupil had been approached by the Garda and questioned about abuse in the School in the 1979 period. The Garda enquiry arose from comments made by the former pupil that had been overheard. Fr Stefano explained to Mr Grey that the person who made the allegation was himself the victim of very serious physical abuse and torture at the hands of his own father, and it was not clear whether the overheard allegation related to abuse in the School or at home. Mr Grey recorded that Fr Stefano was seriously concerned at these developments. He was anxious that the Department should be made fully aware of what was involved, and he would also be travelling to Clonmel, where he had arranged to meet a Chief Superintendent of the Garda in
44
3.303
3.304
106
relation to the matter. He wrote that Fr Stefano then went on to tell Mr Grey in detail about the revelations in 1979 concerning Br Bruno, and the steps taken to remove Br Bruno from the Order and from contact with children. He also told him of his contact with Mr Black in the Department and that, in later years, Mr Black had confirmed to him that he had passed the matter on to protect the Order and the school. Fr Stefano did not know the identity of the person to whom Mr Black was referring. 3.305 Mr Grey recorded that, on 30th November 1995, Fr Stefano contacted him again, on this occasion confirming that he had met with the Garda Superintendent in Clonmel on the previous afternoon, and had provided him with all the information at his disposal in relation to the 1979 allegation and the allegations against Fr Valerio. The memorandum goes on to detail the Superintendents reservations as to whether any action would be taken in either matter. It is clear from the TN030 file that the Garda enquiry into Ferryhouse did not result from information provided by the Rosminians or by the Department, but from overheard comments made by a former pupil in a public place. It was not just the Draft Protocol on Child Sexual Abuse that triggered Fr Stefanos decision to tell the Garda. The knowledge that a Garda inquiry was underway also led to their decision to contact the Garda authorities and contribute to their inquiry. It is enlightening that, at the meeting with the Superintendent on 29th November 1995 and in the course of his contact with Mr Grey on 30th December 1995, Fr Stefano did not also refer to the other complaint of abuse that had been made against a third Brother (Br Sergio). The decision to help with ongoing inquiries had not yet become a broader inquiry into sexual abuse. It was as if each case was seen as a separate problem, rather than as a single issue about child protection and crime prevention within St Josephs, Ferryhouse. Events of 1996 3.308 In a memorandum of 10th December 1996, which was e-mailed to Mr Green, Mr Grey made a note of his meeting with the current Director of St Josephs, Fr Vito, on 4th December, when he was informed that the Garda had now interviewed over 70 boys who were in Ferryhouse in the late 1970s. Arising from the Garda inquiries, at least five boys had made allegations, all against the same person, a former member of the Order, Br Bruno, who had admitted the offences to the Garda in respect of at least four of the cases, and the file had been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr Grey recorded that Fr Vito expected that once the matter became public, St Josephs could expect a repetition of the Goldenbridge situation. The Order and the management were already planning for such an eventuality. According to Mr Grey, Fr Vito was enquiring whether the Department would be in a position to assist the School, by covering the cost of legal representation for any member of staff interviewed by the Garda, the cost of delegating staff to handle anticipated enquiries and all contact with the media, and the cost of providing counselling services for staff who were likely to be traumatised by the developments. There was no mention of counselling for the victims. Mr Grey noted that the more critical issue was the need for the School to be able to offer adequate assurance that the children now in the School were not exposed to the danger of abuse; this he saw as a difficulty, because the main purpose of the meeting with Fr Vito was to discuss staff shortages and specifically, concern that staff and children are currently exposed because of inadequate staff cover. Mr Grey recorded that this was an issue that needed to be urgently addressed in advance of the abuse cases coming to public attention. He noted that the issue of staff shortages had been recognised for some time, but the Department had not made a case to the Department of Finance CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 107
3.306
3.307
3.309
3.310
3.311
because the School authorities had failed to provide data to support the claim. At the meeting, it was agreed that the School would provide the information within weeks, and the Department would make the necessary approach. 3.312 While Mr Grey expressed concern about the need to be able to offer assurances as to the safety of boys currently in the School, there was no expression of concern for those who had been abused by the Brother. The urgency was to resolve the question of staff shortages, thereby avoiding the Departments being exposed to serious criticism when the abuse cases became public. Again, it is worth noting that this memorandum also makes no reference to the complaint against Fr Valerio. The concern was to deal with each problem as it arose, rather than to survey the broader picture. Finally, there are two memoranda dated 19th and 20th December 1996 addressed to the Minister, from Mr Green and Mr Grey respectively. These appear to be memoranda briefing the Minister about the allegations against Br Bruno, and are identical save for the date and the name of their authors. They begin: Fr Vito ... contacted Mr Grey recently and advised that a number of former pupils of St Josephs Industrial School, Clonmel had made allegations of sexual abuse against Br Bruno to the Garda ... 3.315 These memoranda make no reference to the allegations against Fr Valerio, of which both Mr Green and Mr Grey had been aware since December 1994. They are somewhat misleading, insofar as they give the impression that their knowledge of Br Brunos abuse had come to them in the recent past, and as a result of the contact recently made by Fr Vito. They fail to refer to the fact that, in November 1995, Fr Stefano had informed them of Br Brunos activities. Events of 1997 3.316 According to the Department file, Mr Grey was first informed of a boys allegation against Br Sergio on 12th February 1997. In his notes dated 13th February 1997, Mr Grey recorded being told by Fr Stefano that the previous weekend a former pupil had called to Ferryhouse and indicated that he now intended reporting the incident to the Gardai, and that the Clonmel authorities had indicated that they would co-operate fully in any inquiry which might arise. Though this information only came to the Department in 1997, the incident had occurred three years previously in 1994. The former resident had been working in Dublin and staying in a house maintained by the Rosminian Fathers as part of their aftercare programme. He went on a prolonged drinking spree and returned to the house. That night, he awoke to find Br Sergio on top of him. The young man became distressed and left the house, and the next day he went to a relative of Br Sergios to tell them about it. He did not take the matter further at that time, but moved to work in Clonmel. Mr Grey noted that the relative in turn told Fr Stefano, the Provincial, who immediately had Br Sergio removed to a facility in ... the U.K. which caters for the rehabilitation of members of religious orders. Two years after this incident, Br Sergio applied for dispensation from his vows and he left the Order at the end of that year. There the matter rested until 1997, when the young man decided he would report the incident to the Garda.
3.313
3.314
3.317
3.318
This investigation was recorded in File TN030 of the Department which was not included in the Departments original discovery and was the subject of procedural hearings by the Commission in 2003. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
108
The Department dealt with the case with extremes of caution that prevented the matter being dealt with properly as a report of serious crime. The principal issue for the Department was how to deal with the scandal. The children who had been abused or put at risk were not considered by the Department. It took a further 17 years before the matter was reported to the Gardai and the offenders risk to children was addressed.
Complaints made by witnesses

3.319 Two witnesses made allegations of serious sexual abuse by two staff members in the early 1970s. Br Leone 3.320 A witness who was present in Ferryhouse from the late 1960s alleged that he was sexually abused by Brs Leone and Valerio. The abuse took place in Br Leones bedroom, when they would return to the School late after sporting tournaments. It continued for about two and a half years. Fr Daniele 3.321 A complainant who was present during the early 1970s alleged that Fr Daniele sexually abused him. He said that Fr Daniele sent for him and, when he arrived, started asking him about his past and educational history. Up until this point, he thought of Fr Daniele as a nice, jolly man who was very encouraging to the boys. However, on this occasion in his room, Fr Daniele told the witness to take off his clothes, as he needed to examine him. The witness was surprised at this request and hesitated, at which point Fr Daniele became very angry and threatened to beat him. Eventually, he complied with Fr Danieles request, and he alleged that he was raped by Fr Daniele. Fr Daniele then gave him some chocolate and sent him on his way. When he went to bed, he awoke in pain and noticed that there was dried blood on his leg. He said that this happened on a few occasions. Fr Daniele would send for him in the evenings or ask himself if he bumped into the witness. The witness accepted that the Rosminians had a very high opinion of Fr Daniele but stressed that my memory is far different.
3.322 3.323
3.324

3.325 1. Sexual abuse by religious was a chronic problem in Ferryhouse throughout the relevant period but the full extent cannot be quantified. Some of the abuse is verifiable by contemporary documents or admissions. 2. During most of the years between 1952 and 1988, there lived and worked in Ferryhouse a member or members of the Rosminian Order who at some time were found to have engaged in sexual abuse of boys. In more than ten of those years, there were at least two abusers present and in at least two different years there were three abusers there. 3. Complainant witnesses from every era, from the early 1940s onwards, testified about the sexual abuse of children in Ferryhouse. The Rosminian Institute acknowledged that not all of those who were sexually abused have come forward as complainants, whether to the Commission, to the Redress Board, or to An Garda Sochana. In their Final Submission to the Investigation Committee they wrote, We know that some boys were sexually abused who have made no complaint to the Commission or otherwise, but have spoken to us about it. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 109
4. The Rosminian authorities discovered that some members of their Order had been abusing children, but their response was wholly inadequate. When sexual abuse was detected, the Order sought to cover up the situation by removing known abusers and transferring them to other institutions. 5. It was only when the Garda had already become aware of allegations that the Rosminians reported abuse to the Garda in 1995. 6. At no stage did the Rosminians query whether other boys had been abused when a known abuser was discovered. 7. The impact of sexual abuse on the boys themselves was not a consideration on the part of the Rosminians. 8. The Department of Education did not act responsibly when an allegation of sexual abuse was made to it in 1980 and distanced itself from the allegations, seeking to minimise the publicity and scandal which might arise for the Department and the Order. 9. The approach taken by the Department was an ad hoc one. There was no clear policy on the management of sexual abuse.

3.326 A senior member of the Rosminian Order told the Investigation Committee: Thats my belief that every child that was ever in this situation was abused in some way, emotionally, physically or whatever the case may be and you would say that we were part of that because we didnt stand up at the time and probably say so. 3.327 This statement goes further than simply to admit that abuse occurred. It states that the kind of institutional life that was made available in Ferryhouse until the late 1970s was in itself abusive. Boys lived in a system of military-style regimentation, and endured a ruthless regime of control by corporal punishment. The objectives were to reform them, and mould them into obedient and subservient citizens, but the system did not allow for the fact that they were young children with emotional and developmental needs. It offered them the cruel and austere life of a nineteenthcentury institution that had survived largely unchanged into the third quarter of the twentieth century. It had few caring adults who could show affection, compassion and sympathy. The rare staff member who did treat them as individuals, and offered them kindness and support, were singled out by former residents for special mention. For the rest, the adults were there to control the children, and the children had to look to each other for emotional and social support. Whether the boys had been orphaned, or sent in by the courts for juvenile criminal behaviour, they were dragooned into the same system, where the needs of the Institution dictated the way of life. They were forced to adapt to a lifestyle that did not meet their special needs, and if they rebelled they were always seen as trouble-makers rather than unhappy children.
3.328
Orphans and delinquents

3.329 A senior Brother, who served as a Prefect in Ferryhouse in the 1960s, explained how the presence of orphans and delinquents was a major problem in the institutions: Well, you see, after all, I remember somebody saying to me that it was a good thing for the orphans to be exposed to the delinquents, that could make no absolute sense to me whatsoever ... there is an example of what I'm speaking about, of all the children being lumped together in one recreational facility, you see. You're coming from different places, orphans are coming from different places. Orphans needed entirely different treatment to delinquents. 110 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
3.330
It was put to him that the orphans came from broken homes, or homes where parents were ill or dying, or dead, and their need was for another family, for love and affection, and gentle guidance by example, but the delinquents were sent there by the courts, and their need was for control. They had families and homes, and wanted to return, whereas the orphans had no other home. The real problem was trying to administer a system which was treating both the same. Inevitably, it would become more a kind of prison for delinquents than a surrogate family home for children with emotional needs. The Brother replied: The system couldn't work any other way, that's the bottom line. I'm saying that that was the sad point about it. That it had to deal with the most belligerent if you like, if you like to put it that way. That there was no escape from it.
Living conditions
3.331 In the 1940s, because of the Emergency, there was a period of deprivation and food shortage. One witness described the bitter cold they had to endure: There was a big freeze up and the children, including myself, we got chilblains between our fingers, on our fingers, on our toes and they swelled up. Some poor kid they burst and the cold was bad enough, but the pain from those things when they burst made it ten times worse ... At no time were they put in any place warm, they were put in that old recreational place beneath the classrooms. There was a doorway but no door on it ... The Prefects would tell them to keep moving, they wouldnt let them stand still; keep on moving to try to get the circulation going. 3.332 This witness was lucky, in that he was given a job in the kitchen, where there was warmth and more food. He explained: Naturally I could eat more than the other kids because I was cooking it ... I was protecting myself, they could not protect themselves ... I have a lot of feeling for those little children. I didnt suffer half as much as a lot of them did. Dont forget they were hungry, not just for the six months I was hungry, some of them were there nine or ten years, they were hungry every day for nine or ten years. 3.333 His guilt about hiding in the relative comfort and warmth of the kitchen was worsened when, in his last year there, he was given the ingredients to make a Christmas pudding. There was some left over and he was told to put it away for 6th January. When he took it out on that date, it was covered in mould. He was horrified, but he was told to cut the mould off and serve it to the boys. It was the first time ever they had been given Christmas pudding, and it went mouldy. It was terrible, if you look at something like that and then you think of children going to eat it. Fr Antonio described the refectory as follows: One of the earliest nightmares you would have was being in charge of the refectory because you knew the food wasn't good and even the tables were coming to the sides and they used to use what they called hods, which was plastic bowls and plates and stuff like that. It was nearly I would regret an awful lot, hindsight is a great thing but at that time it was a very cruel situation. And because there was only one person in charge of the 150 there would have been a lot of bullying ... I remember one occasion where the older boys were kind of selling slices of bread, which they used to call skinners to other lads. I will give you a slice of bread for two sausages. 3.335 He singled out the conditions of the refectory for special criticism: I remember the tiles in the refectory were slippery and if the steam rose up you would slip and break your leg or anything on the floor there ... Lets be honest about it, there was a CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 111
3.334
chef there that used to stir the pot of stew with the handle of a brush. These things happened and I cant deny them. 3.336 At one point, he made clear the abhorrence and disgust he felt, in retrospect, about how the boys had to eat. He said: For obvious reasons looking back now ... it was horrific. The question I would have to ask myself is, would I have eaten the food out of the bowls the boys were eating out, no, I wouldn't and I didn't. 3.337 On the other hand, he admitted, It was a hell of a lot different for the members of the Order. He told the Investigation Committee, The quality of the food would have been better for a start. You had people serving you. He had grown up as a child in Clonmel, so he knew of the School before he went to work there as a member of the Order. He recalled: My understanding of Ferryhouse at that time was as a child growing up in Clonmel. We used to see them going through the town in lorries with black stockings and red tops in lorries going through and the threat of my age group, and indeed everybody else at that time, was that you would be sent to the monastery if you misbehave. Ferryhouse at that time was known as the monastery. I would have visited and played football against the Ferryhouse boys at that time. 3.339 When he went to work there in the 1970s, he had found the physical conditions even more stark and primitive. The Department of Educations Medical Inspector, Dr Lysaghts report of 1966 described the dormitories as the worst he had ever seen. They bordered on being overcrowded, and had a depressing air of mass communal living. There were no lockers or wardrobes and as is usual then the boys store personal belongings under the mattresses and of course destroy the springs. Almost a year later, a Public Health Inspection found the conditions overcrowded and a hazard to the health of the child. As a result of this report, the Department of Health withdrew their children from the Institution. In his evidence to the Investigation Committee, Fr Antonio, a former Resident Manager, spoke about an experience he had dealing with boys who were sent to Ferryhouse from Artane: One of the I suppose one of the things that made me angry ever since was that I was sent up on a bus to Dublin to collect the Artane boys and the instruction I was given at the time, go up the Artane boys were told, I don't know where they were told they were going but they weren't told they were coming to Clonmel. My instructions were go up on the bus and don't stop the bus or let them out because they will run away. I stand very guilty of that that I hadn't enough courage at that time to say this is not right. I remember well, coming down on that bus and they were arriving in Ferryhouse. From what we heard at that time, I couldn't swear by this, at least there were nuns cooking in Artane, their standard of food was a lot of better. Certainly their standard of clothes were a lot of better. Because I remember them coming down and they were all given three khaki pants and three T-shirts and whatever and they were light years to what our lads were doing. That would have made me quite angry at the time that I was going up to bring all these lads. 3.343 The boys from Ferryhouse looked different. Taken from homes that were deemed to be poor and unable to provide proper care, they were placed in an institution that made them look poor and in need of proper care. It is no wonder that they resented the experience. 112 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
3.338
3.340
3.341
3.342
Family bereavement
3.344 A witness who was in Ferryhouse in the 1940s came from a family where illness, poverty and death led to social upheaval. He was the eighth in a family of 13 children. His mother died of pneumonia. Her youngest child at the time was just one month old, and the complainant was seven years of age. The entire family was placed into various institutions. The four brothers were initially sent to Ferryhouse, but then were split up and the younger two were sent elsewhere. He was unaware that one of his brothers was later returned to Ferryhouse. The witness explained: After he became a certain age, five years of age or that, he was sent to Ferryhouse. But the point about it was he was two and a half years in Ferryhouse before anybody told us he was our brother. So he was in the school for two and a half years and nobody knew he was well, at least we didnt know we knew he was [names the boy] but that was it. We never knew he was our brother. 3.345 He was frightened and confused on entering the School, and he was never prepared for leaving it. He recalled leaving the School and meeting his brother-in-law who took him into his flat. There was no job found for him, and the Rosminians never checked on him after leaving the School. He lived in dire circumstances with his sister and brother-in-law until he joined the Irish Army. A witness, who was in Ferryhouse in the late 1970s, told the Investigation Committee of his family circumstances. He was the youngest of five children, with two brothers and two sisters older than himself. He was physically abused in his primary school, so stopped attending the school. After a number of appearances before the District Court, he was sent to Ferryhouse. His mother was ill with epilepsy and this also contributed to his school non-attendance as he would remain at home to help his mother. He recalled the judge telling him that his parents did not care for him, as they were not even in court. He felt this was a huge injustice. He explained: My mother was after taking an epileptic fit as she was getting off the bus at Christchurch and it took some time to revive her. When my father got to the Court that time he pleaded with [the judge] who, could do nothing at that stage. 3.348 His mother in fact was terminally ill, and she died while he was in Ferryhouse. He was called to the office. He then told the Investigation Committee: I went into Fr Antonio's room and Fr Antonio started crying. And he said to me, "I have something to tell you." And I said "What? is it my mother, my father, my family, something's wrong." He said to me, "Your mother has died", he said. He started crying and I looked at him to say what are you crying for?, because it was all coming down now, what my father was crying for [in the Court]. 3.349 He was driven to Dublin by a Brother. Instead of taking him directly to his family home, the Brother took him to a pub near his home. The witness remained in the car for hours and it was almost 8.15pm when he arrived at his family home. The Brother walked in through the door of the house and gave his condolences to the witnesss sister and then left, saying that he would see her at the grave. He then described the funeral: She was buried on the following day, as far as I know, after Mass in [the cemetery]. I was at the grave in [the cemetery], just inside the gate, and [the Brother] said he was at the grave as well and just as the ceremony was over and people were starting to walk away, he said his condolences again to my father and to my sisters. I don't think he said anything to my brothers and took me by the hand and just brought me over and put me in the car. I was brought back then ... CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 113
3.346
3.347
On my first night back to Ferryhouse, it was actually the early hours of the morning I woke to find another chap, a boy in the school, and he was at my bed as well and he said he was only trying to climb into my bed to comfort me over my mother's death. That's what I remember about my mother's funeral.
Family separation
3.350 A witness, who was in Ferryhouse in the late 1960s and early 1970s, described a family breakdown when his stepmother rejected both him and his brother. He knew his brother was placed in another institution and, when he got out of Ferryhouse, he went in search of him: I found out when I came out of Clonmel, I found out that is where he was and I went. I only found my brother five years ago, if you can understand that. That is how long we have known each other, other than the childhood ... Some family ... took him ... I knew he was in [another institution] and I knew where that was and I went up and I wanted to see me brother ... he was the only brother I had ... I was bigger so I had to protect him. 3.351 He never found him, and discovered his whereabouts only because his brother kept his surname. An aunt of mine found him, he said, and the two of them had to get to know each other after being separated for nearly 30 years. A witness who was in Ferryhouse in the 1950s also recounted how his family was separated and dispersed into the care system, and where no contact was provided for the siblings. There were five children, three sisters and two brothers in the family. The mother died in childbirth, and the witness was sent to stay with an aunt and uncle for four or five months. One other member of his family was sent with him to these relations. His new baby sister was sent to other family members, along with his brother. His other older sister was sent to another institution. He could recall being taken to court and being sent to Ferryhouse on his own. He was devastated by the separation from his family. From then on, he had No contact, no contact as such, no. I did write letters. The regime was a letter once a month, I think. When he got out of Ferryhouse, he went in search of his sisters who had been placed in an industrial school in Leinster. Unfortunately for him, the girls had no memory of him and did not even remember having any other siblings: I found the school ... and I knocked on the door and looked for the two people by name ... The Sister in charge invited me in and after about 20 minutes or so she came up with these two other girls and they were my younger sister and her other sister. That was the first time really I had seen the baby since our mother died ... she would have been only nine or ten at that stage. [The other sister] would have been about 11 or 12 or something like that. They didn't know anything, in fact it was completely blotted out of their minds, that they had any other members of family. 3.354 The break-up of the family unit meant that there was no real connection between any of them: It kind of, if you know what I mean, it ended with no closeness at all, it is just that we know each other. There is no connection as such. We just know we are brothers and sisters like. 3.355 He left a loving family, and went to an institution where he found no love. He said: No one cared, that's what it seemed to me, devoid of any emotional context or devoid of anything. The only thing that was there was physical approach ... I thought, it seemed to be deliberate. It appeared to me that it was deliberate at that time to break the strings. I don't know why, that's the impression I got that, that the strings separate and cut the string so you have no one left, you are more or less on your own as an independent. It 114 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
3.352
3.353
was probably easier to control as well I suppose in the school situation, that maybe after a couple of years you forget that you had any connection with anyone at that time ... I don't know if anyone made friends there, if they just gathered together. One thing that struck me when I left the school there was no goodbyes or anything like that, it wasn't come back or anything like that, there was boys, no farewells or anything like that, just under the arch and up to get the bus away from there. Basically it was cold ... A cold environment.
The States knowledge of the conditions in Ferryhouse

Evidence from a local health inspector 3.356 In 1967, a local health inspector visited the School, following the death of a boy from cerebrospinal meningitis. His report to the Department of Health was thorough, beginning with an examination of the living conditions that might have caused the disease. He wrote: Now this disease can be due to overcrowding, so I accordingly caused accurate measurements to be made of the dormitories, school, etc. and what emerged is what we expected: The school holds twice the number of children there are 192 boys. The floor area and the cubic space available to every bed is 25 sq. ft. instead of 55 sq. ft. which is the normal and 200 cubic ft. instead of 400 c. ft. We introduced every protection for the pupils by way of prophylactics. However we run a serious risk of recurrence. The matter is grave, in fact more than grave, it is unjust, and a hazard to the health of the child ... You will note by the detailed report attached that the school structure where the children are taught is also doubly overcrowded. Again a serious hazard is the level of overcrowding. 3.357 Having found that the dormitory sleeps exactly twice the number of boys recommended, the two officials drew the Department of Healths attention to a number of serious matters, namely: 1. Social malaise. There is clear evidence of social malaise in the institution among the younger denizens. 43 out of a total of 192 boys are bed-wetters. This matter I have taken up with the M.O. to the institution and also with the Assistant Co. M.O., and will deal with it as well as possible, 2. Dental Care. This question I have taken up with the Chief Dental Officer. I feel we should give very full dental care to the boys in Ferryhouse from the clinic during school closure periods etc. Without parents, you will appreciate, it is difficult for them unless the County Council acts broadly in lieu thereof. 3.358 Unlike the School, which traditionally saw bed-wetting as a matter for discipline and learning, the Public Health Officer saw it as a symptom of the level of distress among the boys. Furthermore, he did not see the Order as being in loco parentis because he asked for the local authority to take on the role of parents in caring for dental health. The full report contains other examples of neglect. Among the facts listed were the following: 1. Another unsatisfactory item is that toothbrushes for boys in each dormitory are kept in a wooden box (measuring 4 x 5). The brushes standing close together each in its own slot. This would appear an excellent method of spreading flu, mouth infections and throat infections etc. 2. On inspection only four of the ten w/cs worked properly. Some were blocked or partially blocked, some did not flush. The anti-syphon pipes on these particular w/cs were not connected back to the soil pipes, and flowed over after being flushed. These should be either adequately connected or blocked, as they cause the floors to be continually saturated. Ventilation is through one large roof window and is inadequate. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 115
3.359
Within the main letter is another complaint about the closed nature of the Institution. The Public Health Officer wrote: There is a question, now advanced, of building a new National School within the walls of the Institution. It is my opinion that this is a grave mistake. This is also the opinion of the Medical Officer to the Institution and of [the], Ass. Co. M.O.H. who know fairly well, as I do, that children going out of this Institution because they have no contact outside find it difficult to adapt. We feel the children should go outside to school ... where at least there will be some dilution with children with some pennies in their pockets, or the Clonmel Schools.
3.360
The Department of Health Boarding-Out Inspector, Ms Fidelma Clandillon, seized on this report and wrote: This shocking report confirms some unofficial information I have had over the years concerning Ferryhouse yet two smaller and better schools were closed for economic reasons. From what I have heard the ill-treatment of the boys could do with investigation also. One person who spoke with me about this matter was an inspector of the I.S.P.C.C. It is scandalous that only the death of one of the boys has led to the conditions there coming to light ... [The Secretary, Tipperary (S.R.)] ... informed me that the report had not been sent to the Department of Education but had been sent here as a health matter. I would urge the necessity of this Departments informing the Department of Education of the findings of this report.
3.361
At the time of the report, there were 23 boys maintained in Clonmel under the Health Act, and they were transferred without delay to other placements. The other boys, some 169 in number, had been admitted through the courts and came under the Department of Educations remit. They remained in Clonmel while the Department and the Rosminians discussed how best to handle the problem. On 21st July 1966, less than a year before the local health inspectors report, Dr Lysaght, the Department of Educations Medical Inspector, made a thorough inspection of St Josephs, Ferryhouse. At that time, there were approximately 160 boys in the School. The numbers were later swelled when Upton closed, and 31 boys were moved down to Clonmel. Under the heading Conditions of Premises he wrote: The structure appears for most part in good repair. Several parts require decoration and repairs to fitments in washrooms, and sanitary annexes are needed. It would appear from what I saw in this regard they are inclined to be destructive.
3.362
3.363 3.364
He seemed to be blaming the boys for the broken sanitary facilities. Under the heading Dormitories he wrote: Two in number ... Very large, extending the length of building contain each about 80 beds ... The size of these dormitories and the presence of so many beds conveyed a depressing air of mass communal living ... While there was free passage way between beds and most probably sufficient floor space to avoid justification of any accusation of overcrowding it would be only marginal and there was not room for any further beds.
3.365
In the same month as he was writing the report, a fire broke out in the east wing of Upton Industrial School, and 31 boys were transferred to Ferryhouse. Dr Lysaghts report made it clear there that there was no room for them. 116 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
3.366
Dr Lysaght went on to say: In any event these dormitories are much too big and they should be broken up into smaller units. I can appreciate the need for supervision but it can be got as in the case of Salthill without resort to what I regard as a soul destroying and de-humanising expedient. There is little use in discussing the desirability of having small homes or schools with less than 50 beds, the avoidance of institutional atmosphere from every aspect and at the same time countenance the concentration of double the number sleeping in one room in serried rows of beds, end to end ... I had the feeling that these dormitories were the worst I had seen ... There was a general air of dinginess, bare boards none too clean, bed covers dull and unattractive etc. which did not impress favourably ...
3.367
He found the beds adequate though spartan, there were adequate blankets and sheets, but the latter were none too clean at that. He then added: There is a large sanitary annex containing W.Cs. and urinals and washbasins off each dormitory. The walls are just bare concrete and stained and discoloured. Damage to fitments were seen evidence of destructive tendencies.
3.368
He found a rough and untidy look about the dining room, but the food was good and ample in amount. There were only 10 boys in the School at the time, as the others were on holiday at Woodstown, so his judgements were made under exceptional circumstances. Of their clothing he wrote, The ten boys seen were reasonably well clothed. His comments on aftercare expressed deeper concerns. He wrote: They try to get them jobs on leaving. Most do not want to work on farms they say it is too lonely ... Many join the army but unfortunately the army wont take them til they are 17 ... Those who have training in trades ... would have to serve their time all over again as apprentices outside ... They manage to frequently get places as men servants in religious houses for boys. It would seem, however, that in the case of illegitimate and orphans with no living near relatives the dice is heavily loaded against their getting a fair start in life. This constitutes a social problem, which should be capable of remedy.
3.369
3.370
There is plenty in this report to alert the Department to the dangers of overcrowding and poor hygiene within Ferryhouse, but the report falls far short of being a shocking indictment of the place. It did not stop the Department allowing 31 more boys into the crowded School. Apart from Dr Lysaghts report, there were three reports from Dr Anna McCabe for August and September 1963 and January 1964, when the School population was nearly 200 boys. They are generally very positive. On 15th August 1963, she wrote under the heading Condition of premises, Clean well kept. Improvements have been made and will be made. Outside and inside redecoration is being done. Equipment, sanitation and health were all described as very good. Food and diet, and clothing were described as Improved. Her general observation was that the new Manager was keen to make improvements. She recorded that she had discussed many points with him and he will endeavour to have improvements made. In an addendum following an incidental visit, she wrote, Improvements are being made and in time the school will be much improved. In January 1964, she wrote an almost identical report. Again, the premises were clean well kept and she commented, Improvements are being made and continue to be made. Accommodation, equipment, sanitation, and health are all described as V.Good and food and diet and clothing CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 117
3.371
3.372
are again described as much improved. She again ended with another optimistic comment. She wrote: Improvements have taken place and the new manager is most anxious to help in every way he can to making the school brighter and more cheerful. 3.373 Just two years later, Dr Lysaght found the dormitories the worst Id seen, with a depressing air of mass communal living and a general air of dinginess. He found the number of boys, about 160, bordering on overcrowded. A year after his report, the Public Health Officer found the dormitory was sleeping exactly twice the number of boys recommended and the School was a hazard to the health of the child. The numbers were about the same as when Dr McCabe inspected the School three years earlier. It is hard to explain the inconsistencies in these reports. The Department of Education Inspector concluded in time the school will be much improved and found the accommodation very good. Just three years later, a Public Health Officer had the Health Board remove their children to protect them from a grave situation wherein childrens health and lives were at risk. Ms Fidelma Clandillon, in her memorandum of 17th June 1967, did indeed have grounds to write, It is scandalous that only the death of one of the boys has led to the conditions there coming to light. There were rumours and innuendo about cruelty and neglect in Ferryhouse, so it would be expected that the Department of Educations Inspector would have heard and seen things to cause concern. However, Dr Anna McCabes reports gave no indication of the conditions found by Dr Lysaght and the Public Health Inspector just two or three years later. Even when the shocking report arrived, and after the death of one boy through meningitis, there seemed to be no sense of urgency to effect change. On 8th January 1968, the following letter was sent from the Department of Health to the Minister for Education: I am directed by the Minister for Health to refer again to the minute of 12th September 1967 (ref. 6.43) regarding conditions at St Josephs School, Ferryhouse, Clonmel, and to request you to indicate the present position regarding the arrangements for the provision of increased accommodation in the institution. 3.378 A handwritten note is added by an official in the Education Department. It reads: Phoned Miss Little45 to inform her that Inspector T. McD. had visited Clonmel recently but was unable to complete re-assessment of schools capacity owing to illness of Manager; that Inspector had since sustained broken ankle and would re-visit Clonmel to complete inspection as soon as possible. 3.379 Reading this note, one would never guess that the matter under consideration was the serious hazard of overcrowding, causing a grave risk to the health of some 170 boys. The condition of the School in the 1940s and 1950s 3.380 If Dr McCabes reports in the 1960s are not a good indicator of the conditions within Ferryhouse at the time, her earlier reports are more illuminating. The DES records include a report of a visit on 2nd June 1939. Inspection Reports are available for each of the years that follow until December 1944. Initially, she reported that the School and premises were in a satisfactory state, and that she found the Resident Manager very capable and kind. During the years that followed, conditions began to
45
3.374
3.375
3.376
3.377
3.381
118
deteriorate. In April 1941, the sanitation came in for criticism and she referred to a general slackness about the School. In October 1942, she found the premises very unsatisfactory and complained again about the outside sanitation facilities. This time, she warned that, if there were not appreciable improvements all round, drastic measures would have to be taken. 3.382 This threat had some effect because, in July 1943, she noted much improvement. The premises had been cleaned and painted. However, she condemned the fact that most of the boys were barefoot. She noted that, whenever she recommended improvements, the Resident Manager complained that he did not have the money. She added that, with the increased grants, her suggestions for improvements should be insisted upon. In a further discussion of her visit on 19th July, she added details: she had found the sanitary annex obsolete and dangerous to the health of the inmates, and the improvements needed included a whole new water carriage system and modern W.Cs. She continued, If this is not done immediately the money will be used for some other purpose and on my next inspection the same rigmarole will start. Apart from condemning the boys going barefooted, she asked for a height scale to be bought, for the toothbrushes to be replaced and the bathhouse improved. The report of October 1944 is quite damning. While there were some improvements the new sanitary block had been erected and the bathhouse had been repaired there was a general lack of supervision. The boys were untidy and unkempt, the food and diet were unsatisfactory, and the children were underweight. She blamed the decline on the rheumatic disability of the Resident Manager, who was 73 and gradually becoming senile, and she felt he was unable for the arduous task of Resident Manager. She wrote: He always looked after his boys well and I feel if he were active and capable would still do so. He is unable to get about as actively as heretofore. The chaplain is on his sick bed too and poor old Brother B. (76 years old) is nearly past his work too. 3.385 She called for the introduction of younger staff. She persuaded the Chief Inspector to write to the Provincial to get him to appoint a successor to the ageing Manager. The Provincial brought in Fr Eduardo46 to assist the Resident Manager, and appointed Fr Ambrosi47 as Dispenser to take charge of the physical welfare of the boys, and in particular their food and clothing, which needed a full-time staff member in view of the difficulty getting supplies. Surprisingly, Fr Giuseppe48 disagreed with the conclusions of Dr McCabes report, the National School Inspector had never expressed any discontent and had found the Principal teacher to be highly efficient'. He contested her view that the children were underweight and asked her to submit proposals as to what should be done in the top dormitory and sanitary annex. In these days of high prices, he wrote, constructural alterations are not undertaken except with great caution and after proved urgency. Cost may be regarded as about three times what they were before the war. He accepted, however, that Fr Basilio49 should not have accepted more boys than the 160 maximum. The School now accommodated 200 boys, and the produce of the farm and garden of 70 acres would be ample for a school of 160 boys; a larger number necessitates extern purchasings and greater cost per caput.
46 47 48 49
3.383
3.384
3.386
3.387
This This This This
is is is is
a a a a
119
3.388
This extraordinary letter not merely denied that the boys were not gaining weight, a fact that could be easily proven and was not just a matter of opinion, but stated that the farm produced enough food to feed 160 boys. He did not state whether additional food had been brought in, but implied it was not a customary procedure. Nor did he even consider the effects of overcrowding on the health and welfare of the boys. Dr McCabe was shown his letter and was asked to comment on it. She took him on roundly. In her letter to the Chief Inspector dated 25th November 1944, she set out in detail her thinking on the nutritional needs of growing children and the importance of weight and growth charts in monitoring a childs health. She wrote: No well cared for healthy child should lose weight. Weight may tend to increase more rapidly in one child than in another, but there should always be a gain.
3.389
3.390
She stressed the importance of diet, the need for vitamins A, B, C and D, minerals such as iron, and calcium. She described milk as the most important single item of food, and that it was known as the perfect food because it contained protein, fat, carbohydrate, vitamins and calcium and iron, all important for growth and bone formation. She added: That is my reason for so strongly advocating its use in the schools, and eventually I hope to have each child supplied with one quart of milk per diem.
3.391
She went on to describe how she had been campaigning for an improvement in the diet scales in the industrial and reformatory schools. Shortly after her appointment in 1939, she had revised all diet scales and had advised the individual schools about the deficiencies in diet. She had introduced many new items of food into the school dietary that had hitherto not been in use, because they were unknown to the school managers. Things had gone well in the halcyon days, when food was plentiful and cheap, but matters now could not be regarded as satisfactory. She explained: In practically every school which I visit, I find, with a few exceptions, that the children are insufficiently fed. I have evidence in support of this statement from the medical charts which, after considerable opposition from managers are now used in all the schools. I have obtained verbally particulars of the quantities of the different foodstuffs supplied for meals such particulars are often imparted to me very reluctantly by the Sisters in charge of the school kitchens. The quantities are, in my opinion, far short of what should constitute an adequate meal.
3.392
After this resounding criticism, she went on to set out definitive standards of food provision for each day of the week. On 11th December 1944, the Provincial had replaced the Resident Manager in Ferryhouse. The Chief Inspector wrote to him on 19th December 1944 to say: We are particularly gratified at your choice of a young man. The position of Resident Manager of an Industrial School is only too often regarded as a retirement job whereas it is pre-eminently one for a young, active man, whose lifes work is still before him and who can approach it with the fresh idealism of youth. A Resident manager shoulders the heavy responsibility of father to hundreds of unfortunate boys. He moulds their whole lives during the vital formative years they spend in his school, and there is no limit to the good he may try to do for them except the limits imposed by his own capacity and will.
3.393
3.394
He then went on to comment on the standards being applied by the Department to clothing and diet. He wrote: If we have criticised the standards of diet and clothing at St Josephs, you may be assured that, when doing so, we were only too well aware of the difficulties of obtaining supplies. 120 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
It is in no spirit of contention that I say that our standards in these matters are based on actual conditions at the present time and on the average prevailing in the schools as a whole. 3.395 He makes it quite clear that, even by the standards of the day, the School had been found wanting. He defended the inspection system and commented on the excrement defiling the walls of the sanitary annex. The Department had hoped the new Manager would be a new beginning. Instead, he took up the fight where his predecessor had left off. On 22nd January 1945, he replied to the Chief Inspectors letter: As to diet; I do fear it will be very difficult to comply with all your wishes in this matter. He gave details of the boys diet and said he was at a loss to account for the weight loss noted in very many cases. He estimated the cost of providing the diet recommended by the Department, and protested, Even managers of industrial schools have to meet their bills, so I fear on our present allowance it just cannot be done. Dr McCabe was again showed the letter by the Chief Inspector, and she told him: I do not like the attitude taken up by this new Resident Manager What I have recommended in the matter of diet is of very ordinary proportions and in no way could it be called extravagant ... Financially the school management is better off since 1942. I cannot see how he has such difficulty in managing on the state grant. 3.398 The Chief Inspector wrote back to the Manager on 31st January: If the diet is adequate the children put on weight at the normal rate more rapidly, even, when they were undernourished before admission to the school. He again reiterated that Dr McCabes requirements were the minimum requirements in all schools. The Inspection Reports for 26th October 1945, 29th July 1946, 11th December 1946 and 18th June 1947 indicate progressive improvements in all areas. She warmed to the new Manager, despite the earlier acrimony. In 1946, she wrote, the present Resident Manager is an excellent man. Already he has made many improvements ... He is trying to get a community of nuns to take on the domestic side of the house. In 1947, she again praised his good ideas and added, he considers that a separate amount should be paid for food, clothing and maintenance. She made no comment about the fact that the capitation grant was intended to cover these things, and the Rosminians were meant to care for their property themselves. There was a terse exchange of letters dated 2nd October 1946. The letter from the Resident Manager was not furnished, but it was clearly about the cost of equipment in industrial schools. The official in the Department replied: The suggestion made in your letter that the Minister, whether by design or otherwise, is endeavouring to obtain a control over private property (Religious Property) to which he has no right is altogether unwarranted, and I fail to see what evidence you can adduce in support of that statement. 3.402 The letter then went on to deal with an increase in the rates payable per child as of various dates in 1946. A report exists for 4th and 5th October 1948, and then there is a gap until 3rd April 1952. Dr McCabe had been absent owing to illness. The reports simply note improvements all round. With Fr Pietro as Resident Manager, there were reports during the early to mid-1950s. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 121
3.396
3.397
3.399
3.400
3.401
3.403
3.404
In February 1952, a new kitchen was being constructed, and Dr McCabe noted While food and diet have improved, much remains to be done. The second visit, in October of that year, had the same comment. 1953 recorded the diet to be well balanced, varied and noted the new building had made a vast improvement to school. In 1955, she gave the School an excellent report. From 1956 to 1959, the reports remained positive, calling it a well-run school and commenting on the modern facilities and calling the cooking facilities vastly improved and the food better and varied. In 1956, she noted knitting machine very good all jumpers and stockings made at home. In 1959, she noted with approval the new bakery, and in 1960 she noted the clothing had improved, and that 62 new suits had been made for Confirmation and very good they were. Her reports indicate that diet and health had improved, but the improvements were from a very low standard indeed in the 1940s. At no stage did she comment on matters such as corporal punishment, which, during the 1940s and 1950s, became both harsh and more frequent.
3.405
Conclusions on neglect and emotional abuse

3.406 1. Ferryhouse was a large institution and would have received adequate funding to provide a reasonable level of care for the children for most of the relevant period. In addition, it operated a farm and had trades such as tailoring and boot-making that provided for the needs of the boys. 2. The boys were poorly fed. For much of the period, the food was of insufficient quantity and quality. 3. Poor hygiene and overcrowding were serious problems in the School, and these conditions placed the health and well-being of the boys in danger. 4. The boys were poorly clothed and looked different from children outside the Institution. 5. The accommodation was unsuitable, unhygienic and badly maintained. 6. Family contact was not encouraged or maintained. Boys became cut off from their families and friends. 7. The aftercare was minimal and often non-existent. Young teenagers unprepared for the outside world were thrown into it and had to fend for themselves.
Some historical milestones

The Submission by the Rosminians to the Cussen Commission, 1936
3.407 The Cussen Commission received submissions from the various Orders that had been running the schools, and a very detailed submission prepared by the Rosminian Order has survived. It was published in the recent history of the Rosminians by Brd Fahey Bates.49 The Rosminians submission was prepared by the Provincial, the Very Reverend Giuseppe, who was Manager of St Patricks (Danesfort) Industrial School, Upton. It was a lengthy document, describing the industrial and reformatory school system operating in Ireland in the early 1930s, and it outlined many of the problems and issues facing those working in this field. It is an interesting document because its criticisms, detailed below, and recommendations closely resemble the conclusions reached by the Cussen Report.
49
3.408
Brd Fahey Bates, The Institute of Charity: Rosminians. Their Irish Story 18602003 (Dublin: Ashfield Press Publishing Services, 2003), pp 399405.
122
The committal procedure 3.409 Fr Giuseppe contended that the Children Act, 1908 was not a suitable Act because it implied that the children placed into this care system were either criminals or criminally inclined. They were in fact, he pointed out, committed because of poverty, the loss of one or both parents, or the negligence of some parents, but the actual procedure of committing a child to the industrial school system through the courts nonetheless placed a criminal taint to the whole system. This association of the child with the courts created in the public mind a misconception that is exceedingly difficult to remove. It also created a feeling of inferiority in the child, which lowered his self-confidence. The result meant that, despite all attempts made to help and encourage the boy forward, he was already affected by what had occurred to him even before he arrived in the industrial school. The children were brought to the schools by guards in uniform, and in some places in the prison van. In some cases, the children were kept waiting in the public court until they were called into the private court or justices room. The Cussen Committee agreed completely with Fr Giuseppe on these particular points. The Cussen Report recommended the following: That the practice of hearing childrens cases in the ordinary Courts is objectionable. The arrangement, which obtains in Dublin a Childrens Court housed separately from the District Courts should be adopted wherever possible throughout the country. The term Committal Order should be abolished and Admission Order substituted. The Justices when hearing childrens cases should not wear the robes of Office. Gardai, should not wear uniform when in attendance at Childrens Courts and when bringing children to the schools. Aftercare 3.411 On the subject of aftercare, Fr Giuseppe argued that the aftercare of children, particularly in the commencement of their career, is, in many respects the most important duty of Managers, who should stand legally in loco parentis to the young persons for, say, two years.34 He stated, care has to be taken that children do not return to unsuitable homes or surroundings, for there was a risk of their being exploited commercially. The School Manager, he went on, already carried out the required work for the aftercare programmes efficiently. The School authorities were the best suited to carry out this work. There was a mistaken impression that the Managers lost interest in the children once they left the School. Boys frequently returned to the School when unemployed, and were housed in the Schools until suitable work was found for them. Even so, he contended that unemployment rates for former industrial schoolboys were low but relative. Given the value of this work, the State should provide expenses for aftercare in the industrial schools. Again, the Cussen Reports recommendations concerning the issue of aftercare agreed with Fr Giuseppes argument. Recommendation 28 of Cussen asserted, There is room for improvement in the methods of supervision and aftercare of children discharged from the schools. The Report then recommended: 29(d) The after-care of pupils should be carried out by the Manager of the school or by a carefully selected and experienced assistant. 29(e) Managers should be required to explain to all the children at the time of discharge that if ever in difficulties during the statutory period of after-care they are entitled to return to the school for advice and help.
34
3.410
3.412
3.413
Brid Fahey Bates, p 401.
123
29(f) The co-operation of charitable organisations should be enlisted in the work of after care. The priest in the parish to which a child is sent should invariably be notified by the School Manager of the place of residence and the name of the employer.50 Teaching 3.414 Fr Giuseppe discussed at length the situation of teachers of literary subjects in the industrial schools. He pointed out the major problems facing the School Manager was keeping such teachers in their Schools. These teachers, first and most importantly, were not recognised as National School teachers. This occurred even though they were required to follow, in its entirety, the National School programme and were subject to inspection by National School Inspectors. This non-recognition made it difficult for Schools to retain fully qualified teachers. Teachers stayed until he or she found a vacancy in a recognised National School. Industrial School Managers could not bind them to any terms of service and they could not pay proportionate salaries. He argued that a specific educational grant was required, out of which certified teachers would be paid on the same basis as assistants, as set out in the National School scale. The balance of the grant would be apportioned among the remaining approved teachers. The Cussen Report agreed with the problems facing School Managers and literary teachers, and agreed it required change. It recommended that the conditions of service for lay teachers in these Schools called for substantial improvement, and recommended the following: 36(a) That the cost of literary education should be defrayed out of the State grants for Primary Education (apart from the normal grants for maintenance). 36(b) That future appointment of teachers should be on the same conditions as in the National Schools, and duties other than teaching should not be assigned to recognised teachers who are not members of a religious community. 36(c) That unqualified teachers who have given long and faithful service but whose teaching efficiency is not satisfactory and whose services could be otherwise availed of, should be employed on other duties in the Institutions or, if this is not possible they should be retired with compensation or pension, the cost of which should be defrayed by the School Managers.51 Finance 3.416 Fr Giuseppes central argument was that the basic capitation grants were so low that most if not all of the Schools were burdened with heavy debts and loans. Under the system, the local authorities paid a sum of 4/6 or 5/- per week and the Treasury paid 7/6 per week. This sum, he argued, was inadequate: There remain rents, rates, and taxes, insurance, clerical, managerial, literary and trade expenses, repairs, interest on money borrowed, expenses of after-care etc., all to be met out of grants amounting to 12s or 12s6d per week per child. The Religious had to meet the deficit. Also, children under six years were not paid for by the Treasury. Again, the Cussen Report agreed with Fr Giuseppe to a large extent with these arguments on finance. It stated: 39 After carefully reviewing all the relevant circumstances we are of opinion that the representations of the School Managers as to the inadequacy of the existing grants would be reasonably met, if, in addition to being relieved of the cost of literary teaching, the present State payments were supplemented by a grant of equal amount from the local authorities, such payments being subject to periodic review so as to bring them into line with any appreciable variations in the cost of living figure, or with any material alterations in the numbers of children committed.
50 51
3.415
3.417
Cussen Report; p 53. Cussen Report, p 54
124
40 Grants at a rate somewhat lower than that for other children should be paid in respect of children committed under the age of 6 years. 41 Grants should be paid at the full rate in respect of children committed at the instance of parents or guardians as incapable of control.52 Training 3.418 On the question of industrial training, Fr Giuseppe argued, Owing to the great increase in the use of machinery and of skilled workers, the trades of boot making, carpentry, tailoring etc in the rural districts and to a great extent in the urban areas have gradually become diminished, and in some cases have become defunct or obsolete. Furthermore, the Rules and Regulations of Trade Unions often debar certain classes of children from being apprenticed. Fr Giuseppe argued that the training of boys had to be adjusted to meet modern requirements and the chances of obtaining employment after being discharged. He believed that training of boys in Agriculture (Tillage), Horticulture, Dairy Farming, Forestry, Bee-Keeping and Rural Science would better equip the boys for the positions in life they would occupy. In an agricultural country, most of the boys must be put to agricultural work. He pointed out that there was very little unemployment of boys so trained. Fr Giuseppe believed also that there should be scholarships in Agricultural Colleges reserved for the boys from industrial schools. They had obtained preliminary training already, and should be given an opportunity of advancement. The Cussen Report made several recommendations reflecting the thinking of Fr Giuseppe: 29(c) Trade Unions should be approached by Managers with a view to endeavouring to secure a modification of any regulations, which might act as a barrier to a boys admission to a particular trade. 22 Where agricultural training is given, in addition to tillage operations such adjuncts as poultry keeping, horticulture, and bee keeping should be included ... Instruction in allied crafts associated with farming especially woodwork, thatching, hedging, and harness-making should, in addition, be afforded in schools in purely agricultural districts. 24 Special attention should be paid in the schools to training in the following:- housepainting, paper-hanging, plumbing, electrical work, plastering, glazing, upholstery and general house repairs.53 Conclusions to be drawn from the Rosminians submission to Cussen 3.421 The Cussen Report did lead, over a period of time, to some changes, largely related to the internal management of the School. Capitation grants were increased and, by 1940, the teachers within industrial schools did acquire additional status to put them on the same footing as the teachers in National Schools. However, Cussens conclusion that the industrial school system should be continued subject to the modifications suggested in the Report and that the Schools should remain under the management of the religious orders who have undertaken the work54 led to a protracted retention of the status quo for decades to come. Impoverished children who had lost one or both parents through death or social hardship, or who had been neglected or abandoned, continued to be stigmatised by a system that incarcerated and punished them for being in need. Both the Rosminians and Cussen deplored the effects of this system, yet they both seemed to accept that a life in an institution run by a Religious Order was to be preferred.
52 53 54
3.419
3.420
Cussen Report, p 55 Cussen Report, p 52. Cussen Report, p 49.
125
3.422
The Rosminians recognised the defects in the existing system, but did not advocate more strongly the changes they knew were necessary. They knew that the system itself, no matter how well funded, militates against the childs future and gives origin in the child to a feeling of inferiority which robs him of his courage and lessens his confidence in himself in spite of all attempts made to encourage him to realise his potentialities, but they simply accepted more money to run the malfunctioning system, making no changes until the post-Kennedy upheaval in the 1970s. As quoted earlier, a senior member of the Rosminian Order told the Investigation Committee: Thats my belief, that every child that was ever in this situation was abused in some way, emotionally, physically or whatever the case may be, and you would say that we were part of that because we didnt stand up at the time and probably say so.
3.423
3.424
The submission they made to the Cussen Commission began to say so, but thereafter the voice of the Rosminians became inexplicably muted.
The rebuilding of Ferryhouse: the possibility for change

3.425 Fr Stefano was appointed Resident Manager of Ferryhouse in the mid-1970s, and he remained in that post until the early 1990s when he was appointed Provost Provincial of the Rosminian Community in Ireland. Prior to his appointment as Resident Manager, Fr Stefano had previously worked in Ferryhouse in the early 1960s and again in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He also had worked as a volunteer in Ferryhouse. During his tenure as Resident Manager, Fr Stefano carried out an extensive building and renovation programme in Ferryhouse. As Fr Francesco55, Provincial of the Order, stated in the early 1980s at the official opening of the new School in Ferryhouse: The planning of to-days reality was begun even before I entered the Order. I recall the late Fr Rafaele working on same. He was followed by Fr Lucio whom I am happy to see here today. With the appointment here of Fr Stefano a necessary intensity and a vital momentum was generated and the ideas became realities. 3.427 The conditions in Ferryhouse, despite some improvements in the late 1960s, were very poor. It was for this reason that Fr Stefano set about an extensive rebuilding programme, which was necessary in order to bring about the changes recommended by the Kennedy Report. The rebuilding programme 3.428 Woodstown was a holiday centre in Waterford used by the Rosminian Order for holidays for the boys during the summer vacation. The site in Woodstown was purchased in 1957 and, according to Fr Stefano, was fairly basic. The camp provided basic facilities, which by 1979 were considered inadequate. Fr Stefanos first redevelopment project was the rebuilding of Woodstown. The renovation in Woodstown began in 1977 with the addition of new kitchens, and a recreation-cumdining hall; and, by the following year, a new block which housed the sleeping accommodation for the boys was built. According to Fr Stefano, they raised most of the money themselves, but the Department of Education did provide a grant towards the building works. Justice Eileen Kennedy officially opened the new Woodstown in 1979. Fr Stefanos next project was to rebuild Ferryhouse itself. One of the principal recommendations of the Kennedy Committee was for children to be cared for in smaller group homes rather that the large dormitory-based, institutional buildings. A scheme of capital funding for the provision of group homes was introduced by the Department of Education with the approval of the Department
55
3.426
3.429
126
of Finance. The scheme provided for 90% grant aid towards building costs and service installations. 3.430 The Department of Education, however, had a different view in relation to the group homes scheme being specifically introduced into Ferryhouse. In 1974, the Government established a Task Force on Child Care Services, which reported in 1980. The main purpose of the Task Force was to monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Kennedy Report. The Task Force had difficulty with the Department of Educations proposal to reconstruct Ferryhouse in order to cater for 100 boys. The Task Force saw these proposals as being contrary to the future childcare system, as set out by the Kennedy Report. Furthermore, the Task Force argued that, once the full range of services they had recommended were fully operational, there would no longer be a need for a large centre like Ferryhouse. Their interim report led to further discussions and, in December 1975, the design team was asked to carry out a comparative cost study of a school for 60 rather than 100 pupils. By early 1976, it was proposed that a school for 80 pupils was the most economical number, with provision for 10 in a pre-leavers unit, and sanction was sought for such a school from the Department of Finance. The Kennedy Report and the Task Force envisaged that St Josephs, Ferryhouse would be the centre charged with looking after boys with poor school attendance records or boys unsuitable for foster care. The Task Force was very specific in designating Ferryhouse as a specialised educational establishment, catering for the following categories of children:
3.431

3.432
Those whose educational progress had been hampered by their home circumstances and whose progress, even where they were attending special classes in special schools, was grossly impeded by such circumstances. Children for whom schooling presented particular difficulties and who required special educational help in a sympathetic and understanding environment. Children in trouble with the law or persistently truanting from school and who would not have a community-based service available to them. Children educationally retarded requiring special educational help.
The existing services and buildings at Ferryhouse were out of date and totally unsuitable for the role that was being planned for the School. As a result, an extensive building programme then began in Ferryhouse. A complete transformation of the Ferryhouse complex began in 1980. The planned reconstruction included:

3.433
An open plan school building to replace the pre-fabricated classrooms. A bungalow style unit to be known as Piccola Casa. This was opened in 1980. A new sports centre, including a gymnasium, sports hall, swimming pool and canteen. Six two-storey residential houses, each designed to accommodate 10 to 14 boys. A new dining hall, reception area and service buildings.
The Department of Education funded this building programme. The Rosminians stated, however, that they supplemented the cost of these buildings with charitable donations raised by their members locally. Ferryhouse was now a much smaller complex, with state-of-the-art facilities, caring for a much smaller number of boys. A General Inspection Report for Ferryhouse completed in the post-reconstruction period (Report dated 14th October 1985) detailed the school conditions and services. The Report stated that the diets and meals were excellent for adolescent boys. No complaints were noted and, as diet was a central pivot of care, it must be highly commended. It noted that the School had a consistent long-term psychiatrist, and provided an excellent psychological service on a seasonal basis, with excellent reports on individual children. It concluded that the School was an excellent and well-run, caring School and residential centre CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 127
that provided stability and security for boys, with well-balanced controls that were both meaningful and sensitive.
The Kennedy Report and the staff today

3.434 After the publication of the Kennedy Report in 1970, fundamental changes in childcare policy in Ireland began. Residential care was now viewed as the last option. The numbers of children in full-time residential care would drop dramatically within this decade and would continue to do so throughout the 1980s. Running parallel with the drop in numbers of children in care was an increase in the numbers of staff working in the remaining residential schools. Fr Stefano, in his evidence to the Investigation Committee, spoke about the increasing numbers of trained staff made available to him during his tenure as Resident Manager in Ferryhouse. As Fr Stefano stated in evidence: I would like to compare that to the manager in Ferryhouse that comes on duty this morning. He has two full-time deputy directors. Now, neither he nor the deputies, unless there is severe crisis, would ever have to work a weekend, and they would work a nine to five day. Underneath the two deputy directors there are eight unit managers. Underneath the eight unit managers, there are eight assistant unit managers, and these sixteen people run the school really on a daily basis, 365 days of the year. Under the eight assistant unit managers, there are forty care staff, and most of these staff are highly professionally trained staff. To assist them, there are ten night supervisors and, as Fr O'Reilly said in the last day or two, you know, the average number of boys in the school now would be 30 boys, and very happy about that, you know. These are the objectives that we worked for over the years, but it puts in perspective what a person arriving at Ferryhouse in 1960, 70, 75, the responsibilities that that person was taking on. 3.437 Today, the staff to pupil ratio is heavily in favour of the staff member. In earlier years, there were just 2 or 3 young, untrained men in charge of 200 or so boys. The consequences of this imbalance are evident from this report. Improving the staff 3.438 Fr Stefano had noted that the residential group homes at Rathdrum, Lenaboy, Lakelands, Moate, Cappoquin and elsewhere had been financed by 90% grants sanctioned by the Department of Finance for the building of group residential homes. Fr Stefano also noted the States building of three schools, Oberstown Boys Centre, St. Laurences, and St. Michaels, and he was envious of the staffing and conditions offered to residents at these schools. In response, Fr Stefano sought the services of a consultant, to undertake an evaluation of the Ferryhouse services. Fr Stefano then held a formal meeting with the Principal Officer (Special Education) to discuss the findings of the consultant. The Rosminians, according to Fr Stefano, laid down an ultimatum to the Department of Education. They required the funding to employ 16 lay childcare workers, as there were no professional childcare workers in Ferryhouse. Furthermore, the Rosminians required a budget system of funding for the School. Fr Stefano wanted Ferryhouse financed on a proper budget system, and staffed with generous staffing schedules, in line with the other three new schools recently built by the Department. The Rosminians sought 16 care staff, to provide adequate cover for night shifts and weekends. The Provincial informed the Department of Education that, if these proposals were not given, he would close Ferryhouse. 128 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
3.435
3.436
3.439
3.440
The Department of Education acquiesced, and provided the staffing required by the Rosminians. The staff changes, according to Fr Stefano, directly altered in a beneficial way the boys lives in Ferryhouse. He told the Investigation Committee: From the beginning, the early staff, we made a conscious decision that we would take on female childcare workers rather than male childcare workers at the start because we had four Rosminians and the balance was very overloaded in the boys' lives so all the early childcare workers were female and there was a great sense of well-being and happening in the air. They were young people who were very energetic and very enthusiastic.
3.441
Fr Ricardo gave evidence to the Investigation Committee. He was asked what improvements he saw in Ferryhouse when he returned in the mid-1980s following a time of absence. He said: At that time there were huge, I think, changes. No.1, lay staff I know lay staff had come in on the scene. One thing I do remember when the first lay staff came like before they came, the boys would be quite boisterous. I remember the Community having a long discussion shortly after lay female staff came, how the boys had mellowed or softened in general. That to me was one of the huge changes or factors. Also staff were being trained as well, because the Waterford Regional College had set up a training course ...
3.442
The lay staff now employed in Ferryhouse had received proper training. This was a direct result of the Kennedy Report, which had recommended that priority be given to proper training of staff in residential institutions. The Department of Education state that their response to this recommendation was immediate. A full-time residential course in childcare at the School of Social Education, Kilkenny was established in 1971 with funding from the Department of Education. All the industrial schools and reformatories were given funding to send their staff on the course. The Department of Education was also involved in the organisation of in-service training courses at numerous colleges nationwide. By 1974, approximately 75% of staff working in residential homes had received training in childcare. The budget system
3.443
The second part of the ultimatum given by Fr Stefano to the Department of Education was an adequate budget system along the lines of the budgets provided by the Department to the newly constructed schools. Fr Stefano told the Investigation Committee that the capitation system was the only significant funding received for the School. The farm was not making money at that stage and he was determined that he would never fundraise to put food on the table or clothes on a boys back or anything that was the responsibility of the State. He resolved that all fundraising by the Rosminians was to enhance the lives of the boys and not to provide the basics. This ultimatum in relation to budget funding for their School was in line with the thinking of numerous other groups and individuals. The Kennedy Report recommended that the system of payment of grants on a capitation basis should be discontinued, and replaced by an annual grant based on a budget of estimated costs submitted by each school sufficient to cover all costs. The grant was to be paid direct to the schools by the State. The criticism of the capitation system was that it encouraged institutions to detain children rather than to release them to their families. Fr OReilly spoke about the problems caused by the capitation system: You needed to have a certain number of children in the School in order to make it financially viable, which is not a good way to look at it, but that was the economic reality at that time and therefore at times they were complaining about not having enough children in the school and they wanted more children to be able to have a greater income to spread across ... The system of its nature sought to, or it forced Managers into, trying to have a greater rather than a lesser number of children. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 129
3.444
3.445
3.446
The Department did not give Fr Stefano his required budgetary system immediately, but he succeeded in obtaining a system whereby the School would receive deficit payment on production of financial records every three months. This was a considerable improvement financially for the Rosminians, as Fr Stefano stated, so with money starting to come in, we could start planning. By 1984, a budget system of funding had been introduced into all the schools.
3.447
The changes to the education system

3.448 A number of critical factors combined to bring about fundamental changes in the education provided for the boys in Ferryhouse and industrial schools generally. The Kennedy Report noted that if the task of integration of children in care into society is to be successful it is essential that those in care for one reason or another should have educational opportunities to the ultimate of their capacities.56 The Report stated that the children in care were educationally disadvantaged, and the industrial school educational system had failed to take this into account in catering for the childrens educational needs. Therefore, in the light of deprivation suffered, the children should be provided with more than normal educational facilities so that they could be educated to their ultimate capacities. The Department of Education policy from the 1970s onwards, in relation to education, focused on rehabilitation and compensatory education, provided by well-trained staff. St. Josephs Industrial School building programme provided the opportunity to put these policies to work. With the new school building completed, class sizes were reduced considerably. This allowed intensive remedial teaching to occur for the boys. The numbers of boys detained in Ferryhouse had fallen dramatically, while the number of trained staff had increased. Additional teachers were also put in place to provide teaching in the practical subjects. As a direct result, older boys would undertake preparation for the State examinations in the School. The first State examination was held in Ferryhouse in 1987. The education provided in Ferryhouse today enables most of its residents to sit a State examination, while a number complete the Transition Year programme, with the option of completing the Leaving Certificate Examination while in Ferryhouse. In September 2001, the Rosminians withdrew from active management of Ferryhouse and, in June 2002, they transferred ownership of the centre to the Department of Education and Science. The words of the then Provincial, Fr James Flynn, at the opening of the new Ferryhouse on 11th May 1990, already quoted above, remain apposite: Like any human institution, old Ferryhouse had its bad points as well as its good points, its weaknesses as well as its strengths. It damaged some boys and those have looked back in bitterness and anger to their time here. For many of them, this was the only home that they ever knew and sadly they did not find it a good one. Let me say that a lot of that anger is justified ... The greatest guilt has to be borne by those of us who utilised or condoned or ignored the extreme severity, even brutality which characterised at times the regime at old Ferryhouse. An occasion like this is an opportunity for me on behalf of the Rosminians to publicly acknowledge this fact and to ask forgiveness of those who were ill treated or hurt. We have sinned against justice and against the dignity of the person in the past and we always need to be on our guard that we do not do the same today in more subtle or equally hideous ways.
56
3.449
3.450
3.451
3.452
Kennedy Report, Chapter 7.
130
General conclusions
3.453
Physical abuse
1. Corporal punishment was the option of first resort for problems. Its use was pervasive, excessive, unpredictable and without regulation or supervision, and was therefore physically abusive. 2. Corporal punishment was the main method of maintaining control over the boys and it created a climate of fear that was emotionally harmful to the boys. 3. The system of discipline was the same in Ferryhouse as in Upton. The Rosminians accept that there was excessive corporal punishment in both institutions. 4. Young and inexperienced staff used fear and violence as a means of asserting authority. Punishments were inflicted for a wide range of acts and omissions. The severity of punishment was entirely a matter for the staff involved. 5. Rules and regulations governing corporal punishment were not observed. 6. Excessive, unfair and even capricious punishment did lasting damage to many of the boys in Ferryhouse. 7. Boys were punished for bed-wetting and were subjected to nightly humiliation, degradation and fear. 8. The regime placed excessive demands on the few men who did the bulk of the work.
Sexual abuse
9. Sexual abuse by Brothers was a chronic problem in Ferryhouse and it is impossible to quantify its full extent. 10. Complainant witnesses from every era, from the early 1940s onwards, testified to the Investigation Committee about the sexual abuse of children in Ferryhouse. The Rosminian Institute acknowledged that not all of those who were sexually abused have come forward as complainants, whether to the Commission, to the Redress Board, or to An Garda Sochana. In their Final Submission to the Investigation Committee they wrote, We know that some boys were sexually abused who have made no complaint to the Commission or otherwise, but have spoken to us about it. 11. The succession of cases that confronted the authorities must have alerted them to the scale of the problem, and to the need for a thorough ongoing investigation as to how deep the problem went among the Brothers and staff in Ferryhouse. Such an investigation did not happen. Instead, each case was dealt with individually, as if no other case had occurred. The Order was aware of the criminal nature of the conduct, but did not report it as a crime. 12. Sexual abuse was systemic. When it was uncovered, it was not seen as a crime but as a moral lapse and weakness. The policy of furtively removing the abuser and keeping his offences secret led to a culture of institutional amnesia, in which neither boys nor staff could learn from experience. 13. The extent and prevalence of sexual abuse were not addressed although the Order had some awareness of its impact on children. 14. Once placed in posts, priests and Brothers had complete autonomy, and there evolved a convention of not interfering with what other people were doing. 15. The Department of Education did not act responsibly when an allegation of sexual abuse was made to it in 1980. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 131

16. Living conditions in both schools were poor, unhygienic, inadequate and often overcrowded. 17. Boys were hungry and poorly clothed in circumstances where funding was sufficient to provide these basic needs. 18. Education and aftercare were deficient. 19. Family contact was not encouraged or maintained. 20. As their submission to the Cussen Commission reveals, the Rosminians knew the detrimental consequences of the industrial school system, but did nothing to ameliorate them. They could have changed the regime, but they did nothing until the 1970s.
The attitude of the Rosminians

21. The Rosminian Institute of Charity is to be commended for its attitude to the Committee. The Rosminians refusal to take the conventional adversarial approach, their sympathetic questioning of the witnesses, and their proffering of apologies to the witnesses at the end of hearings, all contributed to an atmosphere very different from that of other hearings. 22. The Rosminians used the memories of former residents to add to the Orders knowledge of life and conditions in their schools. The witnesses became a source of information and, by tapping into it, the Rosminians helped the Committees inquiry. 23. The Rosminians attitude to the allegations evolved before, during and after the hearings. They were the first Order to apologise publicly in 1990. They sometimes modified their approach during the course of a hearing, and they issued a final submission that was a balanced and humane response to the evidence they had heard.
132
Appendix
Report by Mr Ciaran Fahy
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this report is to describe the physical surroundings of St Josephs School in Ferryhouse with particular reference to the buildings. It is based on research carried out by Mr Ciaran Fahy and Mr. Neil Gillespie during the course of which, all of the documentation in relation to Ferryhouse in the possession of the CICA was examined, including a model prepared by the Rosminians shortly after the original buildings on site were demolished. This report should be read in conjunction with the attached map and photographs.
2.0 Background
St Josephs School is located in the townland of Ferryhouse some three to four km due east of the centre of Clonmel on the northern bank of the River Suir. The site is bounded to the north by the N24 which is the road from Clonmel to Carrick-on-Suir, while on the east it is defined by a secondary road running due south from the N24 continuing across the River Suir at Sir Thomas Bridge and continuing generally towards the Comeragh Mountains. Map 1 shows the school as it was about 1951 and in particular, it shows the school buildings laid out in a quadrangular form approximately 60m north of the River Suir. This map also shows the position of the N24 and the road running due south from this towards Sir Thomas Bridge which obviously provided access into the school. In addition, the school farmyard was to the north of the school buildings facing onto the N24 and it will be seen there is an internal road linking this with the school buildings. The distance from the N24 to Sir Thomas Bridge is approximately 320m and the distance from the farmyard to the school buildings itself is some 150m. St Josephs in Ferryhouse dates from 1884 when the Rosminians were invited by Count Arthur Moore, the local MP to take over a house which he had built shortly beforehand. Count Moore constructed the main red-bricked three storey house at a cost of 10,000 and he handed it over on 14th June 1884, to the Rosminians apparently on 3.6 hectares of land and in addition, he gave them a further 1,000 to furnish the house. It appears the land was rapidly increased to approximately 16 hectares and in addition water was found and pumped while walls, gates, outhouses and workshops were built and the house was furnished. In January 1885, the institution was certified for 150 boys and apparently it had reached that capacity by May 1886. The indications are that the buildings at Ferryhouse in the main were constructed very shortly after the school was opened in the mid-1880s and this is evident in photograph no 8 which is an old postcard apparently dating from about 1920. This was taken looking to the north and shows in the centre the main three storey building with the three wings behind it forming the square or quadrangle and behind this again there are three pitched roofs running more or less north-south together with a further building just north of the quadrangle. There were some improvements and changes over the years but the general arrangement described appears to have remained intact until the construction of the new school commenced in the 1980s. This was constructed in phases CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 133
involving the removal of the original buildings and continued until the late 1980s when the original main three storey building was demolished.
3.0 Details
3.1 Farm
There was a farm associated with the school from its inception until around 1979/1980 when it was closed down completely and after that the land was sold off in pieces. The farm itself started as approximately 16 hectares very shortly after the school was opened and this was initially intended for the feeding of the pupils. The farm was enlarged over the years to about 32 hectares or possibly up to 50 hectares and it extended from the house north towards the N24. However, a portion of the farm was also located south of the river, while as stated previously the farmyard itself was located alongside the N24. The main use of the land was for potatoes, dairy and also hens and in addition, there was an orchard beyond the west wing. The farmyard has been completely demolished and no detail of it remains. It apparently was updated some time in the 1960s with a milking parlour and a chicken house being added at that time. Finally, it should be noted that all of the buildings and the land still in possession of the Rosminians was transferred to the State in 2002, apart from approximately three hectares of land unsuitable for farming south of the River Suir. Some impression of the farmyard can be obtained from map 1 showing the layout in 1951. It has been completely demolished and all that has been retained is a lodge alongside the N24.
3.2 School Buildings

Details of the school buildings are shown in the map. Essentially, this consisted of a quadrangle formed by the main house which was the red brick three storey building constructed by Count Arthur Moore in 1884, together with an east and a west wing extending north from it with the entire enclosed by a north wing. Beyond that and just north of the quadrangle there were three or possibly four other separate buildings. The main house itself was three storey, while the east and west wings were each two storey with the north being single storey. The three or possibly four other buildings north of that again appear to have been single storey industrial type buildings. The general arrangement is quite clear in the photographs of the model number 1 and 2 and also in the earliest photograph no 8 taken about 1920. From scaling the Ordnance Survey sheet the outside measurements of the quadrangle were approximately 66m x 66m. The inner space was approximately 48m east-west x 44m north-south without making any allowance for the projection at the rear of the main house.
3.3 The Main House

The main house originally constructed by Count Arthur Moore was a three storey red brick building shown clearly in the photographs of the model number 1 and 2. The main axis of the building ran east-west and in plan it appears to have been approximately 35m x 12m. As originally constructed however, the house was cruciform in shape with a significant front projection and also one to the rear which incorporated the main stairs. As shown in the model, this had four floors and it may well have been added subsequent to the construction of the original house. In addition, the main house also contained a single storey extension at the rear or northern side known as the cloister which connected into the west wing and which ran across the back of the house. The main house is also shown from the rear in photograph 4 and this shows a fire escape leading down to ground level alongside the cloister which runs as far as the gable. In the lower left hand corner of this photograph, it is possible to see another external stairs, which apparently gave 134 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
access to the first floor level on the eastern wing. The photograph also shows the projection at the rear of the main house, consisting initially of a high pitched section which was original and incorporated the main stairs. Behind this, there is a four storey section with a flat or a low pitched roof and which quite clearly was constructed in different phases. The earliest photograph of the main house is no 8 which apparently was taken from postcards dating back as far as 1918/1920. Photograph 8 shows that the construction of the house is effectively unchanged in the later photographs. Just inside the main entrance at ground floor level as shown in model photograph 1 and photograph 3, the Resident Managers office was on the right hand side while there was a parlour on the left hand side. Just beyond the Managers office on the right hand side there was a secondary stairs which led to the first and second floor level and from which it was possible to gain access to the dormitories. This, however, was not the main stairs and was not used by the boys since the main stairs was in the rear return of the building. The upper floors of the front projection apparently contained Community bedrooms used by the Resident Manager who apparently slept above his office and also for the Prefects. There appears to have been no main corridor at ground floor level within the building since this purpose was served by the cloister at the rear. This cloister is shown in photograph 7 and also in photograph 9, both of which were taken looking towards the west wing. Photograph 9, shows the start of the main stairs on the right, while facing this, the doorway leads towards the main entrance. The windows on the right hand side of the corridor obviously lead to the outside and the yard enclosed by the quadrangle, while on the left hand side there was a Community room which apparently had a large billiard table in it and beyond this again on the western gable was the Community dining room. This is shown in photograph 10 which again was taken from an old postcard dating from around 1920. The upper two floors of the main house were used as dormitories with the junior boys being allocated to the second floor and the senior boys to the first floor level up until the mid-1960s. In each case, the dormitories ran the full length of the building and are described in a questionnaire completed by the Rosminians in 1944 for the Department as being 33.5m long x 7.3m wide. Up until the 1960s, it appeared each dormitory was laid out to accommodate 100 children without any partitions. A report compiled in the 1940s says the first floor dormitory for the senior boys contained 92 children, while the second floor for the junior boys contained 100. It describes each of them as having central heating and electric light and it says the senior dormitory had 16 windows while the junior one had 26. The windows in the junior dormitory were obviously much smaller, as shown in the photographs and in fact photograph 4 shows that two of them have been removed to facilitate the fire escape. This 1940s report gives the height of the senior dormitory as 4.25m while that of the junior dormitory is 6m. Finally, it says there were 28 wash basins and two lavatories for the senior dormitory and 17 wash basins and two lavatories for the junior one. After the mid-1960s the boys were reclassified as A or junior boys up to the age 12, while the B boys were from 12 to 14 and C boys were from 14 up. The junior or A boys were moved out to the east wing while the B boys were placed on the second floor and the C boys on the first floor level. At about that time, the arrangement of the dormitories was significantly altered with partitions being introduced to give a cubicle type arrangement with four beds in each around a central corridor. This reduced the capacity of the dormitories to approximately 40 beds in each case. Photograph 17 was taken about that time and gives an impression of the layout in the first floor dormitory. There is a reference in the documentation and in particular, in a letter of October 1944, to a new sanitary annexe having been constructed and prior to that there were only dry closets in the CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 135
playground. Consequently, it seems likely that this section of the building was originally two storeys constructed in the 1940s and was subsequently extended to four floors in the mid-1960s. Originally, the ground floor contained wash rooms, in other words showers and toilets while the first floor was traditionally bedrooms used by the farming staff. When the second and third floors were added these contained showers and toilet facilities allocated to the dormitories on that floor within the main house. In addition, they contained linen rooms or store rooms for use by each of the dormitories. The washing facilities at the top floor in this area are shown in photograph 18, apparently taken about 1968.
3.4 East Wing

The east wing is shown in photograph 5, while it is also shown in photograph 6 where it joins the northern wing. This shows an archway which was the only vehicular access into the yard as well as a further fire escape or access point to the upper level. At ground floor level the east wing contained the assembly hall as well as some storage and beyond this there was a recreation room and also a visitors room at the northern end of the block. Access to the upper floor was via an external stairs which gave onto a balcony running the length of the wing. Initially, this was open and gave access into individual rooms but about 1967/1968 this balcony was covered and enclosed and in fact photograph 13 was taken at that time showing the enclosed balcony. Photograph 2 of the model also shows the enclosed balcony with the stairs near the main house giving access to this level and the bottom of this same stairs is just visible on the lower left hand corner of photograph 4. Initially, the upper floor of the east wing contained five classrooms and also the tailors shop but after about 1967/1968 the junior or A boys up to the age of 12 were moved to the first floor displacing the classrooms and the tailors shop. At that time, it appears the first floor was divided into three dormitories and in addition, there was a Prefects bedroom and bathroom/toilet located at the northern end of the wing. By scaling the Ordnance Survey Sheet the east wing appears to have been approximately 48m long overall by 8m wide. The 1940s report referred to earlier describes five classrooms each of them 7m wide x 4.2m high, with two of them being 11.9m long, a further two of them 11.3m long and one 7m long. There is also reference to a play hall and a big school which may be the assembly room and hall taken together. In each case the width of these is 7.3m and the height is 4.6m. The play hall is given as 22m long while the big school is described as being 12m long with a 6m stage. The five classrooms are described as having stove heating and the number of pupils ranged from 34 to 50. The tailors shop is shown in photographs 14 and 15.
3.5 West Wing

Access into the west wing was via the cloister at the rear of the main building and there was an internal stairs at the southern end of the wing giving access to the first floor level. The first floor was mainly taken up with Community bedrooms with the washroom/bathroom for them at the southern end near the top of the stairs. Apparently there were nine Community bedrooms on this floor and at the northern end of the wing there was a nurses bedroom and beyond that again there was an infirmary with an outside fire escape. At ground floor level there was the Community kitchen and then a storage area followed by the boys dining room followed by the kitchen and the stores for the boys. Overall, this block also scales approximately 48m x 8m. The boys dining room again taken from an old postcard is shown in photograph 11, while the infirmary is shown in photograph 12. In the 1940s document this is described as being 6.7m x 8.2m x 4.2m high. It is described as having eight 136 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
beds together with a lavatory and a bathroom. No mention is made of heating, but photograph 12 clearly shows a stove.
3.6 North Wing

The north wing was single storey and divided into a number of rooms whose use changed over the years. On the eastern side near the archway leading to the outside was the shoe shop or cobblers. This was followed by the toilets which appear to have been accessed by means of an open doorway and the model in photograph 2 for example, shows a flat roofed extension behind this, which apparently was a new toilet, built in the 1960s. The wing also contained a nurses post, a Prefects office and a recreation room. The dimensions of the north block appear to have been similar to the other two i.e. about 48m x 8m, but no information is available in relation to individual rooms. The cobblers shop is shown in photograph 16.
3.7 Other Buildings

The model in photograph 2 shows three pitched roof buildings beyond the northern wing running more or less north-south. The one on the western side i.e. the right hand side of photograph 2 apparently was built around 1930 and was newer than the other two, which apparently were interconnected as shown on the model. The newer building apparently contained the bakery in the northern section while the band or music room was located on the southern side of this. The other two units which were interconnected contained the main laundry as well as the boiler house and maintenance workshops. The two interconnected buildings scale approximately 18m x 16m. In the 1940s questionnaire the music room was described as 6.7m x 7.3m x 5.6m high. Finally, there was a water tower as shown in the model just to one side of these. At the end of the 1960s when the classrooms were moved out of the first floor of the east wing, prefabs were placed to the north of the existing buildings alongside the internal road running towards the farmyard. The positioning of these prefabs is clearly evident in the 1973 Ordnance Survey aerial photograph. It appears the prefabs contained nine classrooms together with an arts and crafts room, a tailor shop, a knitters shop and a general purpose room. An open and unheated swimming pool was constructed by the school in the 1950s and this was located on the southern side of the River Suir just beyond Sir Thomas Bridge and it was open to members of the public as well as being used by the school.
3.8 Services
The school was apparently supplied with electricity from early on, in other words shortly after its construction but the source of this is not clear. It is known that the gas company in Clonmel never serviced the school. There is a reference in the early documentation to water being found and pumped but it appears the main supply was from the Glenmorgan River south of the River Suir and this continued to be the case until mains water was supplied probably in the 1970s. Initially, the school was served by septic tanks and this continued until a small treatment plant was installed in the 1980s which apparently was not very successful. The use of this was discontinued approximately two years ago when a pumping station was installed to connect to the main town sewer. It appears the school had been provided with oil fired central heating from the 1960s and before that solid fuel was used. However, there is a reference in the 1940s report to stoves being used to heat the classrooms.
137
138
Ordnance Survey Aerial Photograph

Taken 28 June 1973
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
Chapter 4
St Josephs Industrial School, Greenmount (Greenmount), 18711959
History and establishment of St Josephs Industrial School, Greenmount

4.01 St Josephs Industrial School, Greenmount, was the only industrial school run by the Presentation Brothers. The first boy was registered on 5th April 1871 and the last was registered on 27th February 1959. A total of 3,592 boys passed through Greenmount.1 The School closed on 31st March 1959, when there were still 127 residents in the School, 113 of whom were sent to other industrial schools and 14 were discharged.
The Presentation Brothers

4.02 The Presentation Brothers owe their origin to Edmund Ignatius Rice when, in 1802, he founded the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools. The Communities inspired by Edmund Rice adopted a modified form of the Rules of the Presentation Sisters and were under the jurisdiction of the bishops of their local dioceses. In 1820, Pope Pius VII granted Edmund Rices application for his society to be given papal approbation and a Constitution. Under this new Constitution, all the houses became united under a Superior General except for the house in Cork, where Bishop Murphy refused his consent, despite the desire of most of the Brothers to be part of Br Rices wider congregation. In 1826, the Cork house joined the others, but one of the Brothers, Br Austin Riordan, dissented and offered his services to the Bishop of Cork who placed him in charge of a school in the south of the city. With his secession, the teaching congregation known as the Presentation Brothers was created. The number of Brothers grew rapidly and, despite their having split from the main group of Brothers of the Christian Schools, they still regarded Edmund Rice as their founder and inspiration. The new Congregation spread across Ireland and moved their base to Dublin. They continued to be subject to their respective bishops until 1889, when Pope Leo XIII confirmed the Congregation and all the houses united under a Superior General. This independent status allowed the Congregation of the Presentation Brothers to expand further, with branches in all the provinces of Ireland, and houses in England and Canada. The Presentation Brothers take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. They live in small groups or communities, organised on hierarchical lines, with the younger Brothers obeying their superiors without question. Their daily life is organised by strict monastic rules, involving a daily routine of
1
4.03
4.04
Dermot Keogh, St Josephs Industrial School, Greenmount, Cork (Report prepared for the Presentation Brothers, May 2001 and submitted to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse 19 May 2004), pp 187188.
151
prayer, meditation and study. They adopted the motto of the Jesuits, Ad majorem Dei Gloriam,2 and the Brothers place the initials F. P. M.3 after their name. Their mission is to form Christ in the young through education. Their work is with disadvantaged and marginalised people, both young and old, and it was this mission that led them to accept the running of an industrial school and orphanages. 4.05 Apart from these vows, the Brothers undertake to devote their lives to all people and are forbidden to enter into particular friendships. Professor Dermot Keogh, in a report he prepared for the Presentation Brothers in May 2001, wrote: Inside the monastery a Superior would strongly advise against the formation of what were known as particular friendships. No definition is readily available to help amplify the meaning of this phrase. But it was usually intended to refer to the development of a close emotional bond between two brothers.4 4.06 He quoted the Visitation Report of 9th October 1901 which exhorted: Particular friendships cannot be too carefully guarded against. They rarely, if at all, are without harm and never do any good ... Familiarities with the boys should be most cautiously guarded against, being most hurtful both to boys and Brothers. Even with employees and externs there should always be maintained a reserve that would keep them at proper distance and enable them to have for the Brothers that respect due to their position.5 4.07 The implications of this need to keep a proper distance will be discussed later.
The establishment of Greenmount

4.08 The site that was renamed Greenmount in the 1870s was originally called Gallows Green. It was made available in 1852 at a rent of 30 shillings a year for 500 years to the Bishop of Cork, Dr William Delaney and other Catholic Church dignitaries, including Edmund Paul Townsend, one of the Presentation Brothers. On it they built St Patricks Orphanage, a residential home for orphaned and abandoned boys, commencing the building in 1858. The Bishop requested the Presentation Brothers to run the orphanage and they took charge of it in 1862. It soon reached its capacity, and had to be extended in 1866 because of the increasing number of boys needing admission. Dr William Delaney, the Bishop of Cork, who held that position from 1847 until he died in 1886, was a forceful personality and an advocate of educational reform. He was determined that Cork would be the location of a model industrial school run by a Catholic Order, and he saw it as an important step in overcoming the years of discrimination against Catholics by the governments of those years. It was this ambition that drove him to turn the newly founded St Patricks orphanage into an industrial school. He saw the industrial schools system as one that would benefit the children who were being raised in poverty and ignorance in the Cork area. Because of his drive, his ambition was soon achieved: the orphanage acquired the status of Industrial School on 14th March 1871. The existing orphanage building was not large enough for the new project and so, in 1872, work began on a new building adjacent to the orphanage. It was to be named St Josephs School for Boys. An aggressive fund-raising effort, spear-headed by Dr Delaney, raised sufficient funds for the construction of the School, with accommodation for approximately 220 boys. The Cork Examiner described the building as it neared completion:
2 3 4 5
4.09
4.10
For the greater glory of God. Fratrium Presentionis Mariae. Keogh, p 54. Keogh, p 57.
152
The new building itself is a handsome and substantial edifice, built of red brick, in the domestic Gothic style of architecture, from a design and plan furnished by Mr George Ashlin, the eminent architect. The front (or northern) elevation presents the bold and effective appearance of a three-storey house, pierced by about forty windows, of which the limestone dressings relieve the ruddy monotony of the chief material, and a lofty, projecting gable at either end with cut limestone barges, flanks the long range of the body of the building. The edifice as it stands, covers an area of 120 feet by 50 feet high. The first rooms met with in this corridor, on either hand, are intended for a reception parlour, 17 feet by 22 feet; a refectory for the Brothers, 22 feet by 23 feet; and a sitting room for the chaplain, 20 feet by 17 feet. Farther on, in the front of the building, is the refectory for the boys, a spacious and cheerful hall, 57 feet long by 28 feet wide, capable of sitting 200. It is lighted by six large windows of plate glass, and above each window appears a ventilator, which passes upward in the thickness of the wall to the eaves. At the eastern end of the refectory will be the kitchen, 20 feet by 15 feet, separated from the refectory by a partition, and communicating with it through a turnstile ... Opposite the refectory door is a convenient staircase, by which we ascend two flights to the first floor, passing on the first landing a room for one of the Brothers. Another ample corridor, like that in the basement, traverses this floor, and from it we enter the first dormitory, occupying the whole front of this storey, 120 feet by 28 and a half feet, with a similar arrangement as to the light and air to those observed in the refectory. The monotonous interior of this splendid apartment is broken near either end by moulded piers, united by three neatly moulded arches, at a distance of 15 feet from each wall.6 4.11 The article went on to describe the boys dormitories, which were built over two floors, the one above corresponding in every respect with the dormitory below. Each housed 125 beds. The new larger School was opened on 1st December 1874. There were also plans for numerous additional facilities at the School, such as the provision for the building of a chapel, schoolrooms and workshops for the training of shoemakers, carpenters, coopers and bakers. Building continued throughout the Schools early history. In 1888, trade shops with schoolrooms were erected. By 1896, buildings comprising a day room, band room, coal house, toilets and additional schoolrooms had been built. In 1900 and 1901, the kitchen, pantries, storeroom, boiler house, scullery, bath and toilets were added. Bishop Delaney wanted a model industrial school for the Cork area, and the building matched the grandeur of his conception. It was built to the highest standards, designed to be an institution that the Church and the city could take pride in. This imposing building, unlike many other industrial schools, was located within Cork City, and local townsfolk formed links with the School, providing both charity and, later, social contact for the residents. The Bishop outlined his ideal in a speech given at the Chamber of Commerce in March 1874 to mark the completion of the Greenmount Male Industrial School. He told the audience: The object of this institution is to take from the streets poor boys who are on the way to perdition, to rescue them from vice and misery, and to save the community at large from the consequences of allowing them to grow up ... untrained, steeped in misery, and with no means of support save what they can obtain by depredations on the community.7 4.15 He praised the Industrial Schools Act (Ireland), 1868 for making such schools possible. It stemmed from the finest principles that should govern humanity. He went on:
6 7
4.12
4.13
4.14
Cork Examiner, 28 March 1874, cited in Dermot Keogh, St Josephs Industrial School, Greenmount, Cork May 2001. Cork Examiner, 30 March 1874, cited by Keogh, May 2001, p 41.
153
There is gentleness of treatment for those to be reclaimed; there are reformatories for those who have fallen away, and the perfection of the system was to anticipate evil, and save young people from vice, from misery, and from mischief to their fellow citizens; and for this the Industrial School Act has been passed.8 4.16 The conception was idealistic and motivated by a genuine desire to turn the poor and abandoned children of society, who had to live by pilfering and scavenging, into educated and useful citizens. Professor Keogh made the point in his report that: There is no contemporary suggestion that the conditions under which the boys would live in Greenmount would be severe. The bishop had stressed the reforming nature of industrial schools. The school ethos was intended to provide a safe environment for the boys, who would range in age from six to sixteen. 4.18 The following ground floor plan of Greenmount was made available to the Committee:
4.17
Source: Professor Dermot Keogh
The acquisition of lands surrounding Greenmount

4.19 Having built a model school, the plan then was to extend the grounds so that it would become a farm capable of giving the boys training in farm work, and at the same time provide food for the School and additional income from the sale of farm produce. The School was built on eight acres of land, and the staff and boys in the School began cultivating the surrounding land. The farm was deemed a commercial success. The Cork Examiner reported, In the past seasons
8
Cork Examiner, 30 March 1874, cited by Keogh, May 2001, pp 412.
154
Greenmount has sent the earliest and best potatoes to the Cork market and produced other vegetables in abundance and good quality.9 4.20 The Brothers continued to expand the farm. They purchased much of the surrounding land at the turn of the century, and the adjacent farm comprising approximately 39 acres by the early twentieth century. Greenmount also had two further farms located at Lehenagh, on the outskirts of the city. It is recorded in the School annals that the Management decided to sell these farms because of difficulties arising in the day-to-day management of them. Department of Education records described the farm: The farm attached to this school has an area of 39 acres. It is used to supply milk and potatoes to the institution. Fifteen cows are kept and the feeding for these is grown on the farm. 4.22 In a Report to the General Council dated 1954, reference was made to the farm and its produce: There are 10 milch cows, one heifer, 4 sows, 33 bonhams and 3 horses on the farm. There are two workmen besides a gardener employed. Brother Ignado10 is in charge. Brother Arrio11 in his poultry farm has 52 hens and 42 pullets. He gets about 15 eggs per day. (From that number he should get 36 or 40 eggs a day.) 4.23 As the following table shows, profits from the farm were modest and, in some years, the farm ran at a loss. The bakery, however, was more successful: Extracts from financial records for the farm and the bakery, 19451957
Financial year 1945 1946 1947 1955 1956 1957 The farm contribution 1,244 1,152 859 69 775 114 The bakery contribution 1,545 1,396 1,137 1,736 48 1,012
4.21
4.24
The large profit made by the bakery in 1955 is explained by the fact that there was a five-month strike by bakers in the city, and Greenmount sold bread to the local shops. The demand was so great that they even bought a second-hand van to replace their horse-drawn cart to speed delivery.
Certification
4.25 The original certificate for the School allowed 168 boys to be accommodated, and this figure was increased to 188 in 1885. The late 1890s saw a further increase to a capacity of 200 and, in 1913, the accommodation limit was increased to 220. In 1933, there was a final increase to 235 children. Management made representations in 1942 for yet another increase in the certified number of children, but their application proved unsuccessful on the grounds that nearby Upton and Baltimore industrial schools were not operating to their full capacity. However, in 1944, further funding became available to the Department of Education, and 11 additional certificates were allocated to Greenmount, bringing the certified limit to 231 from 1st February 1944.
9 10 11
Cork Examiner, 24 March 1874. This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym.
155
4.26
The School was recognised under the Children Acts as a place of detention for boys on remand awaiting criminal trials or committal to certified schools, and it accepted a small number of boys in such circumstances. In October 1944, the Brothers were asked whether they would increase the number of places for boys on remand from four to eight, in view of the increasing number of boys coming before the courts in Cork. They agreed to do so on the basis that such boys were under 15 years of age, but regretted having to state that, for obvious reasons, we are not willing to receive boys under eighteen years of age. It is not altogether clear from the documentation whether or not boys on remand were actually sent to Greenmount, as in 1950 the School was asked once again whether they would take such boys. The Resident Manager responded, confirming that, although he was willing to do so, he felt impeded by the fact that the School did not have separate accommodation to house these boys and the fact that he understood that the School would not receive payment for these boys from the State. The Department of Education, after consulting with the Department of Justice, assured the Resident Manager that the School was entitled to payment for boys remanded to Greenmount, and indicated that the accommodation issue should not present an insurmountable difficulty. Br Esteban12 wrote back on behalf of the Resident Manager, confirming that the School was willing to accept up to eight boys. He added, I would like the age limit not to exceed 16 if possible, and also not to accept any cases who may be brought before the District Court for immorality. When asked whether they would consider accepting boys between the ages of 16 and 17, the Resident Manager responded, I think it would be an injustice, both morally and otherwise, to the boys already in the School, to accept such youths. From 1st April 1952, the capitation grant for industrial and reformatory schools, which were also recognised as a place of detention for remand juveniles, was almost doubled from a grant of 3s 6d per day per child to one of 7s 0d for those children detained there on remand. The number of boys in Greenmount Number of children in St Josephs Industrial School, Greenmount
Year 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952
12
4.27
Number of children under detention 206 199 218 219 220 219 224 218 123 224 230 236 226 209 179 164
156
Year 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958
Number of children under detention 148 152 136 70 125 133
250
200
150
100
50
0
1937 1939 1949 1951 1953 1955 1941 1943 1945 1947 1957 1959
157
Management structure
4.28 The Superior General ensured that the rules and the Constitution of the Congregation were being observed and that there was agreement to the horarium. A system of internal supervision, whereby the Superior General or his delegate visited the School twice a year, was set up for this purpose. While the focus was on the life of the Community, the overall operation of the School was observed and occasionally commented upon. Staff and management of the School 4.29 Between August 1938 and March 1959 when the School closed, there were a total of seven Resident Managers appointed. Five of the seven held the position in the 1950s. These frequent changes must have resulted in a degree of instability in the running of the School. A number of these Managers admitted they had had no training or suitable experience for the position. Both the Department of Education and the Congregation were well aware of the importance of having a suitably experienced person in this pivotal position in the School. The report entitled Report on the Occupational Training Provided in the Industrial Schools and in Glencree Reformatory commissioned by the Department in the mid to late 1930s, which is referred to in detail in the section Industrial Training below, and also the Cussen Report13 emphasised the importance of having a Manager with the requisite experience and qualities for this highly specialised task. Yet in Greenmount, as in other industrial schools, because the Resident Manager was very often also the Superior of the Community, the Department did not get involved in this appointment and left it in the hands of the Congregation. The Congregation, for its part,
13
4.30
Report on Reformatory and Industrial Schools, 1936.
does not appear to have recognised the importance of the appointment, particularly in the 1950s, which was unfair both to the Resident Managers appointed, some of whom must have found themselves struggling to cope with the task, and most importantly, to the boys. The daily routine
Time 6.45 7.15 7.30 7.307.50 7.50 8.00 8.30 9.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 About 6.00 9.00 (Later in summer) Boys called/ dress Chalks cleaning duties. Monitor in charge of 8-10 boys Boys strip in yard or hall and wash at sinks Mass Breakfast bread and coffee School Lunch Dinner meat and two veg then play Workshops/trades/band Play Evening meal Bread and cocoa Bed Mass Breakfast in refectory Teaching Brothers work in school Lay Brothers supervise Activity for boys Duty for staff Brothers rise Prayers in oratory
Visitation Reports 4.31 Apart from the Department of Education Inspection, the School in Greenmount received two visits per year, from the Superior General, the Provincial, or a Brother delegated to conduct a visit, who was known as the Visitor. The visits usually lasted two days and concentrated on ensuring the observance by the Community of the rules of the Congregation. The Visitor frequently criticised the way in which prayers and the Office were recited. The reports also made brief comments on how the School was run. At the end of each visit, a Visitation Report was completed and placed in a book that was left at the School. A separate report was made to the General Council of the Presentation Brothers, which was based at Mount St Josephs, Passage West. In 1952, the governance structure of the Congregation changed, and an additional tier of authority was introduced in the form of the Provincial Council, which reported to the General Council. Therefore, from 1952, in addition to the usual Visitation Reports, there are also Provincial Reports available. (These Provincial Reports were based on the Visitation Reports.) The Visitation Reports gave a good insight into the life of Presentation Brothers in Greenmount. The Reports concentrated on the absolute necessity for strict observance of the Constitution of the Congregation, and any derogation was frowned upon. Many of the reports prescribed reading lists of religious texts which the Brothers were expected to study. The Provincial Reports and Visitation Reports that made specific reference to the welfare of the boys generally remarked that they appeared well cared for, well fed, happy and healthy. The use of words such as the boys appeared would indicate that the Visitors assessment of the boys was a superficial one, based on observation rather than on any careful examination of actual conditions. In particular, there was no evidence that the Visitor spoke with the boys about their experience of the School. Despite spending two full days in the Institution on each visit, none of 158 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
4.32
4.33
the concerns noted in the Department of Education Inspection Reports at various stages were commented on in the Visitation Reports. Visitors, as a rule, asked about the level of punishment administered and were usually assured that it was kept to a minimum. This assurance, however, was given by the persons who were responsible for the punishment and, in the absence of a punishment book, it was impossible to estimate the extent or severity of punishments administered. For example, the 1940s was a period when an acknowledged regime of harsh punishment operated in Greenmount, and yet the Visitation Reports did not reflect this. 4.34 Lay workers were kept at arms length. The time of the lay workers in the Institution should not be wasted by Brothers holding unnecessary conversations with them, reported the Visitor, Br Diego,14 in his Visitation Report dated 12th June 1934. In the same Visitation Report, he ordered that a nurse should only be called in to attend to a sick Brother after permission was obtained from the Superior General or, in his absence, a senior assistant. Similar lines of demarcation were laid down for the Brothers. Only the Superior and Bursar were permitted to visit the boys infirmary, which was regarded as the strict domain of the nurse. In the Visitation Report of December 1936, Br Diego set out various recommendations for the Brothers and the boys. The local Superior was requested to notify the Superior General if any Brother was outside the house after 9pm, even with permission. Brothers were expected to retire to their rooms at 10pm every night. They were required to stay away from such world amusements as were unbecoming to a Brother, as well as places where their attendance would cause scandal. Attendance at horse races, dog races and opera houses was singled out as particularly inappropriate. The Superior was not to, directly or indirectly, supply cigarettes to the Brothers. The cinema was out of bounds unless the film was approved having regard to the Papal Encyclical on Films of 1936. The recommendations for boys included advice that no boy should be allowed to go to a Brothers room after night prayers. Organised games should be introduced, with playing fields made available. In the Visitation Report of October 1942, Br Diego complained that the farm staff was unduly large and that staff levels could be reduced by 40 percent. He also noted with criticism that labourers wages were above the Government standard and that overhead costs had soared. Br Diego again visited the School in March 1944 and found that the management, discipline, the general tone and atmosphere of the school have dropped some points since 1941. He did not elaborate on the reasons for his view or make recommendations for improvement. There was no Department of Education General Inspection Report or Medical Report for that year for comparison purposes. In any event, by December 1944, another Visitor, Br Enrique,15 noted an upward trend in the management, discipline and tone of the School and was confident that the high standards would be restored. The Brothers were expected to be completely self-reliant and were forbidden from discussing Community business with outsiders. Br Juan16 visited the School in 1945 and noted, the brothers should be careful not to disclose Community affairs to those who have not the right to know them not even to priests or relatives. He also cautioned against incurring expense except when absolutely necessary. There were no adverse comments regarding the management and conduct of the School in the remaining Visitation Reports of the 1940s.
14 15 16
4.35
4.36
4.37
4.38
4.39
159
4.40
Br Jose17 reported in June 1951 that the education of the boys was well managed, but warned the Brothers of the Community: ... of the heavy responsibility placed on their shoulders of training these boys to face the world. The spiritual, moral, educational and even industrial training should receive very careful planning and attention.
4.41
He recommended that the Brothers consult with each other and pool their ideas as to how best to further the training of the boys. The following year, the Provincial Report noted, the average age of the Brothers is too high, for the exacting duties they are called upon to perform. A Bursar and another young Brother would be required to carry out the necessary work. The report went on to state that, with falling numbers, the financial viability of the School was in doubt. In May 1953, Br Jose recommended that the boys should receive regular instruction in the civic and moral virtues. The Provincial Report of the same year also recommended that a maid be employed in the Brothers kitchen instead of the boys. Further Provincial Reports of the same year complained that there were not sufficient boys in the workshops, despite the fact that half the total number of boys in the School were at the trades training age. In a Provincial Report the following year, it was recommended that all of the boys in 7th class be transferred into trades training classes. The Provincial Report of June 1955 referred to the fact that Br Garcia18 had complained that discipline under the current Manager was somewhat lax. This report also made reference to immorality among the boys. Br Blanco19 completed a Visitation Report in December 1955 and he acknowledged the difficulties in running a school of 133 boys from troubled backgrounds, particularly when the average age of the Brothers was 54. He emphasised the need for supervision, and that all members of the Community should pull together to ensure that the School was properly managed. The Provincial Report of autumn 1957 was most critical of the management of the School and noted: The boys seem to be well supervised etc. At the same time they appear to me to be very raggedy and unkempt. I am convinced that all the uplift which we a religious body should give is not being given. We should be able to do something for them and make something out of them and do more than merely keep them. All my suggestions to this, and in fact to any matter were turned down by the superior as Utopian, impractical and impossible ... To sum up, the superior is good to organize, sees about the boys and is efficient generally. He is handicapped to some extent in the staff he has. However, he knows everything, he is open to no suggestion, he is lax about obeying higher superiors and I would say, he does not and will not realize very fully his responsibilities as leader of a religious community.
4.42
4.43
4.44
4.45
4.46
4.47 4.48
The Provincial Report the following year noted that the same observations still applied. The final Visitation Report in December 1958 by Br Jose continued to express concern at the condition of the School. He stated that, although the School was well conducted, the discipline,
17 18 19
160
supervision, food, and general training of the boys would need to be thoroughly investigated so as to devise methods to get the best results. The School closed three months later.
The Investigation
4.49 The Committee obtained discovery documents from the Presentation Brothers, the Department of Education and Science, the Diocese of Cork and Ross, the Garda Sochana and Fr Andrew.20 In addition former members of staff and former residents furnished statements. In preparation for the hearings, the Commission sent letters to 19 residents listed on its database as having been resident in Greenmount and wishing to proceed with their complaint as of September 2005. Of those, one confirmed that he was not proceeding with his complaint and six did not reply. The remaining 12 were listed for hearing, seven of whom were heard and five withdrew. A further complainant had been heard in 2002. In addition, evidence was heard from one respondent.
4.50
Physical abuse
What the Presentation Brothers have conceded
4.51 Br Denis Minehane, Vice Principal of the Presentation Anglo Irish Province, gave evidence during the Emergence Phase on 1st July 2004 in relation to the position taken by the Presentation Brothers on the issue of whether there was physical abuse in their Institution. He told the Committee: we have not formed a view that systematic child abuse occurred at Greenmount Industrial School. We are prepared to accept that a harsh regime operated there which would be unacceptable by today's standards. In relation to the specific complaints made to the Investigation Committee it is extremely difficult to perform any meaningful enquiry into these allegations which relate to events between 40 and 60 years ago. This is compounded by the fact that virtually all the Brothers who worked at the School are deceased, and furthermore many records are incomplete. 4.52 He explained that the Anglo Irish Province have not issued an apology but the Congregation as a whole, in updating its website six weeks ago, did issue a public apology. This apology stated: The Presentation Brothers apologise to any person who was abused while in their care. The Brothers are committed to implementing the appropriate national guidelines for dealing with complaints relating to child sexual abuse, and will respond to the best of their ability to any person who comes to them with a complaint. Accordingly the Brothers have appointed a Child Protection Coordinator in every unit of the Congregation to meet with people who have complaints to make. 4.53 Br Minehane said of the apology: It was along the lines of, we apologise for any wrongdoing or any abuse that occurred to any person while in our care. That was done for two reasons. First of all to give our regret. Secondly to encourage anybody out there who is hurting to come and make that complaint. 4.54 Br Minehane then confirmed that the Presentation Brothers had contributed to the Redress Scheme. He stated: Well, we were members of CORI and in 2000 when this came up first we were participating in the Faoiseamh help line and we contributed to the Faoiseamh help line.
20
161
We were a member of the 18 congregations and when the question of the contribution came up we felt that especially because of our 1955 incident that we would feel very exposed if all this went to litigation. We felt that it was prudent management to make a contribution to the Redress Board.
4.55
Br Minehane said that the Presentation Brothers knew of around 60 allegations of abuse concerning their Congregation by 2002, when they signed into the Redress Scheme. He confirmed that any Brother against whom allegations were made and who was still alive was interviewed and, in all cases, there was total denial.
4.56
When asked what view the Congregation had of the reality of the allegations being made, he replied: Well the Community would have to believe that if these allegations were made that there was grounds to believe that there was wrongdoing taking place. To that extent we apologise and regret that anything like that did happen while children were in our care.
4.57
He could say nothing about the specific complaints because of the passage of time and the unavailability of either witnesses or detailed records to corroborate or disprove the allegations. He added, the furthest I could go, I think, is that I must concede that at least some of those complaints are valid.
4.58
During the course of the Phase II hearings, further, more precise concessions were made. Counsel for the Presentation Brothers said of one Brother (Br Arrio) who was Resident Manager/Superior at Greenmount in the mid-1930s and again from the mid-1940s to the early 1950s: My clients suggest that he was a strict disciplinarian, Br Arrio, he was a very strict man. We accept that certainly from time to time he may have overstepped the mark.
4.59
In Phase III, Br Minehane was asked if there was unwarranted physical abuse in Greenmount and he replied: Yes, by today's standards there certainly was, especially at a period during the 1940s, our research would show that there was certainly excess corporal punishment.
4.60
Br Minehane was asked to clarify what he meant by the phrase excessive physical punishment in the light of todays standards. He replied, my interpretation of it is that corporal punishment in schools was totally acceptable until 1982. Under questioning, he went on to concede that some punishments were indeed excessive by the standards of the time, and that he did not need to use the term by todays standards.
4.61
In summary, the Presentation Brothers made the following concessions: 1. Greenmount operated a harsh regime, especially in the 1940s. 2. The corporal punishment administered by the Superior, Br Arrio, during the 1940s was excessive. 162 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
Br Arrio
4.62 Br Arrio was at Greenmount from the mid-1930s until his death in the late 1950s. As mentioned above, he was Resident Manager/Superior of the School in the mid-1930s for three years and again from the mid-1940s to the early 1950s. A Visitation Report from the mid-1940s noted that The Management, discipline, the general tone and atmosphere of the school have dropped some points since my Visit [three years previously]. The reappointment of Br Arrio during the mid-1940s soon turned this situation around, because the Visitation Report commented, The management, discipline and tone of this school are on the upward trend. I am quite confident it will very soon hold the honoured place it occupied prior to [the appointment of Br Arrio]. During the 1940s, the annual reports furnished by the Resident Manager of the School to the Department of Education gave a glowing picture of benign discipline being enforced in the School. In the early 1940s, it said, Punishment of every kind is all but a dead letter in the school. One year later, the Department was told Punishment of any kind is all but abolished in the school. The reports for the following two years used the same phrase, Corporal punishment of every kind is, all but, completely abolished. From the mid to late 1940s, in answer to the question Nature of the punishments for misconduct, the identical answer was given: Forfeiture of rewards and privileges, which are allowed boys of good conduct. The 1940s were precisely the years that the Presentation Brothers acknowledged to have been an era marked by excessively severe corporal punishment. Br Minehane was asked to explain the contradiction. He began by saying, I would have question marks about it. He then went on to explain that the Resident Manager, Br Arrio, was in charge of discipline, and was the same person who wrote that report. He then said: He was the Resident Manager and I have no explanation for it except that he regarded himself as the disciplinarian in the School. And from his point of view ... corporal punishment was part of it. 4.65 The fundamental inadequacy of the system could not be more apparent. The Brother who was himself operating a severe and harsh regime was the same Brother who reported to the Department. His reports to the Department were misleading: they claimed that punishment consisted of a system of withdrawing privileges, when in fact the School was being controlled by severe beatings and a climate of fear through a regime that he himself commanded. The testimony of a former Presentation Brother in respect of Br Arrio 4.66 Mr Olivero21 (formerly Br Olivero) joined the Presentation Brothers in the mid-1940s. He spent a year teaching in Greenmount before going to a Training College in Waterford. He returned to Greenmount in the late 1940s, where he again taught for one and a half years. He left the Congregation in the late 1950s. He gave evidence to the Investigation Committee in respect of Br Arrio and his disciplinary regime. Mr Olivero said that, when he arrived at the School, he was told that if any boy committed a misdemeanour he should be sent to the Head Brother, Br Arrio, who would look after him. He said that Br Arrio was regarded as a strict disciplinarian and the boys were fearful of him. He agreed that the boys had good reason to be afraid of him. He explained: if a boy did commit any misdemeanour, if he fought in the yard and if he didn't try and pull himself together, all I had to say was, okay, do you want to go to Br Arrio and they'd say no.
21
4.63
4.64
4.67
163
4.68
When he was asked if he thought it was a good thing that the person who was in ultimate control should instil such fear in boys he replied, I thought it was maybe a bit extreme. When asked if he had seen boys being caned in the yard, he explained: When the boys were lined up in the evening time, before going, maybe, for a meal, for the evening meal, I did see him chastising boys with a stick. I thought it was very extreme because if he had, we'll say, twelve lines of boys there was a monitor for each who was responsible for each line of boys ... And the monitor, if he couldn't explain the absence of some boy in his group he was punished, and I thought that was very unfair.
4.69
4.70
Mr Olivero also confirmed in oral evidence a particular method of punishment that was referred to by complainants and which is outlined below. This involved the boys climbing a ladder in a storeroom and Br Arrio beating them with a cane. He was asked whether he and those Brothers with similar views could together have had some influence over a Brother who was harsh or severe with the boys. He replied that there was no mechanism at all to have such an effect. He explained: ... I was too young and too inexperienced at the time to make a complaint. If I did make a complaint I would probably I dont know would I be listened to ...
4.71
4.72
His dilemma was a common one. Those Brothers low in the hierarchy could not challenge their seniors because of their vow of obedience. This inability to challenge the status quo meant that progress or change was virtually impossible unless it came from the top. Although he felt some complainants exaggerated the level of abuse in Greenmount, the complaints about Br Arrio were, he believed, justified. He said, ... I wouldn't mind if they do make complaints about the treatment he meted out to them. The evidence of the complainants about Br Arrio
4.73
4.74
A witness who was in Greenmount from the early 1940s to the early 1950s recalled Br Arrio taking over from his predecessor, whom he described as a stern man, but he got on and I suppose he done his job. Things changed for the worse, he said: I can still remember that man, if I can call him that, as a tyrant ... He took pleasure, and it helped him in some sick, sadistic way to beat children, and he had his own ways of doing it. If you were reported by another Brother to him you had what was commonly known in Greenmount School as "up the ladder". That will never leave my memory.
4.75
When asked to explain, he said: You stood on that type of ladder ... and you were naked, which was a horror thing for any man saying he was a member of religion or knew there was a God there or recognised a God, as a child you are up there hanging on to ropes with your hand on them so you wouldn't slip, naked. That's when he lashed you across the buttocks, the hips or maybe the raw thighs. And the way he left you, you were given a white nicks like a footballer and you wore that for many days, all dressed up and the boys could laugh at you, but on top of that you had to go to the nurse and get iodine on it.
4.76
He conveyed his feelings at the time by saying: If you hit a dog hell squeal, a human, a little boy who was an orphan, feels just as much as a stray dog and thats the way we were treated. 164 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
4.77
He went on to describe the implement used to hit boys: He had a cane maybe. Now I am speaking as maybe a ten year old or an eight year old, nine year old, so I am going back. Maybe it was that length of a stick (indicating). I always remember there was a knob on the end of it, it was a bamboo cane and it would bend around your leg. He said that he got that from the Garda the Department of Justice, he made a big note of it one time, telling us where he got it, and to use it liberally ... he used keep the stick in the back, up behind his belt. You never looked at him in the face, you always looked to where that damn stick was.
4.78
Another complainant recalled this method of punishment. He was a resident in Greenmount from the mid-1950s, and he also told how Br Arrio gave him a beating up the ladder. He told the Committee: Br Arrio would take off your clothes and you would have just an underpants on you and you would walk up the ladder and he would give you a slap of the cane ... That took place in a little room .....He brought me into that room and he said he asked me what did I run away for and all this and I told him that I just ran away, I wanted to go home. So he gave me a hiding for it as well ... He told me to walk up the ladder ... It was one of those ladders that you could go up the top and come down the other side of it. You go up one side and down the other side ... I was asked to strip to my underpants and walk up the ladder ... He was hitting me [with a bamboo cane] so I ran up the ladder. ... He used to run around after you. He wasn't as old as people was making him out to be, he was able to run and he was able to do his thing, what he had to do... Br Arrio always made ... the kids climb up the ladder.
4.79
Mr Olivero was asked if he could confirm punishment by Br Arrio that involved the use of a cane and a ladder in the storeroom, and he said: I knew it happened. I never saw it happening, it was just hearsay. It was known that punishment was administered there and that there was a record kept to be seen by a representative of the Department of Education.
4.80
One witness described another form of punishment used by Br Arrio to punish a boy at dinnertime: There was various degrees of punishment ... Somewhere, somewhere along the line that man worked in another job, or he was taught of keeping your toes off the ground, eat lying on your knees just and keep your toes off the ground but use your hands to go down to a bowl, like a dog, that's the way you eat. That was another punishment of his.
4.81
A former resident of Greenmount who was there in the mid-1940s said: Br Arrio used to stand in the room, once you darned your socks, you had to go up for his inspection. If it wasnt to his liking he would cane you and he would punch you in the head.
4.82
He also recounted an incident when Br Arrio beat him and his brother for complaining about inadequate food at Greenmount: It is the same story. My brother was beaten and he was beaten really bad. Why we were beaten so bad is when we went home my dad was home from England one time and he said to us, "you look very skinny", in other words, thin. He said, "if I took you up would you say it in front of the monks, Br. Arrio?" We said yes. So my dad took us up and Br. Arrio was as nice as pie to him. And my dad said the boys said they are not getting enough to eat. He said, "is that right, boys?" We made a big mistake and said yes. He showed him the bake house, the farm and all that and said they were getting this and that. When my dad went down to England he called us in about a week after and he gave CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 165
us a hell of a beating and [my brother] got the worse of it because he said he was the eldest and he was the ringleader. The Visitation Reports on Br Arrio 4.83 Some of the Visitation Reports single out Br Arrio for mention, but always in a favourable light. After a visit in the late 1940s, the Visitor wrote: There is a full quota of boys. They appear to be happy and well looked after, and great credit is due to the devoted Superior and his staff for the successful management of this Institution. 4.84 In a Visitation Report two years later, Br Arrio received specific praise: The Superior ... has a long and very creditable experience at this kind of work, he is patient, kind and self sacrificing with the result that he seems to have secured the good will and best endeavours of all under his charge, nothing escapes his notice down to the fixing of a new bolt in a door ... 4.85 Somehow, the harsh and severe regime run by this Brother to control the boys through fear and physical punishment was not uncovered by the Visitors Inspections.
4.86
The corporal punishment administered by this Brother was contrary to the Rules and Regulations for Certified Industrial Schools and was severe by the standards of the time. There was no system in place to control his excesses. Neither the Visitor nor the Department of Education Inspector detected the violence or, if they did, neither commented on the matter. The misleading nature of the annual reports to the Department of Education indicated knowledge on the part of the authorities that what they were doing was wrong.
Br Garcia
4.87 A witness who was in Greenmount in the 1940s and early 1950s told the Committee about unnecessary punishments administered during class by Br Garcia: If you can imagine that being a desk and out here is the seating, it comes out about six or seven inches from that, you knelt up on that and it is on the backs of the legs you got the stick. You might say did he hit you four times, did he hit you six times, I couldn't honestly and on oath say exactly how many times he struck me at any one time, but that was his modus operandi of trying to teach. Now, he had a saying like when we would fall in from school, he knew his class by the way they walked, a horrible thing for a human being to say ... We were all limping, that's what he meant. 4.88 A Visitation Report to the General Council in the mid-1950s recorded that: Br Garcia reported that he considered that discipline was somewhat relaxed since the present Superior took up office. The Superior assured me that all care is taken to have the boys superintended and supervised at all times. 4.89 His colleague, Mr Olivero, who gave evidence to the Committee, insisted Br Garcia had a great rapport with the boys and ... wasnt severe or anything like that. He would be a disciplinarian, as I would have been myself, I presume. 166 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
Br Allente22
4.90 A former resident who was in Greenmount in the early 1950s described a beating he received from Br Allente. He was careful to state that he was not complaining about the use of corporal punishment as such. He explained: Well, the definition between punishment and brutality is this: in normal circumstances in a classroom two, three or six slaps on the hand ... When you have all the force of a grown man into punishing a child with severe strength that is brutality. 4.91 Br Allente, he said, picked on him because he was a slow learner, and used the T-ruler on him several times: ... after a while one bit broke off, I think he was banging it across my back and then another time when he used the same ruler again the second part fell off. So he was left down to just a small bit and the T ... I do not remember him beating as cruel to other children in my classroom as he was with me. 4.92 Another witness described beatings he received from a number of Brothers whilst he was in Greenmount in the mid-1950s. He mentioned Br Allente as one of these Brothers: You never forget these beatings no matter how old you are, you never forget the beatings you get in them schools. 4.93 The testimony detailed above indicates that several individual Brothers did use excessive corporal punishment from time to time. However, many witnesses were anxious to point out that Greenmount had many good points and many good Brothers. One witness, who was there in the mid-1950s, not merely compared Greenmount favourably with another institution, but made a point of praising some Brothers. He was moved with five other boys from Carriglea to Greenmount, and told the Committee of the difference: It was softer than Carriglea ... they weren't as cruel as regards beating you ... A bit more freedom ... a bit more lax ... as regards the things you did, you weren't restricted to doing anything. They were fairly lenient with you ... you could play soccer, which you couldn't play in Carriglea ... Everything was played. But it wasn't trained, you weren't trained for it, that was just between ourselves. 4.95 He was asked specifically if he felt that, in Greenmount, the Brothers there were a bit less violent. He replied: Oh yeah, they weren't as brutal as in Carriglea. They would have odd spasms of it, but they were a lot more lenient ... Well, they used the strap and all that, but not as much as it was done in Carriglea. 4.96 He described Br Allente as a hard task master, but all right, and said that Br Santiago23 was a nice man. He said it was better when Br Santiago took over because there was more tolerance. One of the other boys who was transferred from Carriglea also gave evidence. He was in Greenmount from the mid-1950s until it closed in 1959. He told the Committee: The good things were playing hurling and football in the pitch when there was sports, when you were allowed to go out. The good thing was some of the Brothers were good and treated you like maybe you should be. The other thing was going to the Father Matthew Hall for the annual panto, which we went to and which we enjoyed going.
22 23
4.94
4.97
167
Eventually we started going to the cinemas in Cork because we used to have sometimes in the School they would show you the odd film here and there. But going out, it was actually going out, getting out of the Institution and going down through the streets of Cork in two by two. 4.98 He was delighted with the fact that they were allowed to go out escorted into the town. He was asked if some of the Brothers treated the boys with respect and dignity, and treated them as children. He replied, They did, some were very good. He added later, The older Brothers seemed to have more compassion with the children than the younger Brothers. Another resident from the late 1940s also stressed that there was both good and bad in Greenmount. He said there was a lot of rotten apples, right, in the School ... but he said some of the Brothers were good to him: The Brother that I used to work in the farm with, he was very good to me. He then named two of the five working Brothers and said it was like hell with them, but he said the other Brothers were grand. Mr Olivero, who had no qualms about denouncing Br Arrio as too harsh and severe, nonetheless felt that there was not a violent regime. He said: There was discipline there, there was strict discipline, but I mean it was no different to what it was in an ordinary primary school ... in the absence of parents we did the best we could. What more could we do? 4.101 The person most often mentioned in the complaints was Br Arrio, who was accused of being consistently brutal. Other Brothers were also remembered for administering excessive or arbitrary punishment, on a less frequent basis. As one complainant put it: They used to beat you hard. The degree of beating they gave you was more than some of the other Brothers, some were more lenient in their dishing out of punishment.
4.99
4.100
Conclusions
4.102 1. There was systematic use of excessive corporal punishment in the 1940s. 2. There were complaints about Brothers in the early 1950s, when corporal punishment appeared to be widespread and on occasion severe. 3. Some Brothers were regarded as nice, friendly and approachable. When they used corporal punishment, it was for misbehaviour and was accepted by complainants as being justified.
Sexual abuse
1955
4.103 A major crisis in the affairs of the Industrial School came to a head in late 1955, when the Resident Manager, Br Carlito24 and a senior Brother on the teaching staff, Br Garcia, were the subjects of serious allegations of sexual abuse of boys in the School, resulting in the transfer of the Resident Manager and the resignation from the Congregation of the other Brother. The latter protested his innocence at the time, and subsequently maintained that his voluntary departure by way of dispensation from vows came about because of his dismay at the way the matter was handled. The Resident Manager remained in the Congregation and later was the focus of further complaints of sexual impropriety.
24
This is a pseudonym..
168
4.104
There were a number of Diocesan and Congregation Visitations to the School during this year. The Bishop of Cork and Ross, Dr Cornelius Lucey, visited the School on 7th January 1955. The School Diary records that: He inspected the House, interviewed some of the Brothers and five boys separately. He expressed his satisfaction as a result of the interviews and from what he saw himself.
4.105
It could be inferred from this note that the bishop was pursuing a line of inquiry, but he appears to have been reassured. The Provincial of the Congregation, Br Jose, carried out the annual Visitation between 14th and 16th June 1955, and the consequent Report was very positive about the School generally and Br Carlito in particular: As at the last Visitation I am pleased to note that the Constitutions are well observed and that there is a good spirit of fraternal charity ... The Superior neglects no opportunity to better the conditions under which the boys live, and together with his staff is devoted and zealous in the care of the boys in their spiritual and temporal welfare ... The affairs of the Brothers should not be discussed with the secular staff.
4.106
4.107
However, shortly after the Visitation, Br Jose received some disturbing news about immoral practices amongst the boys, which he outlined in his report to the General Council: Some days after the completion of this Visitation I got a report from a member of another Community that immoral practices were being carried on between the boys themselves. The information came originally from a Missionary priest (Fr. Brendan25 I think) who had been Spiritual Director for a time to the Legion of Mary Praesidium at the Industrial School. On being questioned about this, the Superior admitted that he was aware of the fact, having been informed by Fr. Brendan himself. He knew the names of the four or five boys concerned, had them all placed in Dormitories that they could not easily contact each other, and giving special instructions to the Night Watchman without giving him any information or naming any boys.
4.108
Some five months after this Visitation, Br Blanco, a member of the General Council, carried out an unusually long Visitation to Greenmount. It lasted 12 days rather than the usual two to three days. Allegations of sexual abuse of boys were made against two respected members of the Community, Br Carlito, the Resident Manager, and Br Garcia, either before or during this Visitation. At the same time as the Visitation by Br Blanco, a separate investigation was being pursued by a Canon David26 on behalf of Bishop Lucey. No record survives of Canon Davids report to the bishop following his visit. Br Blanco, who conducted the lengthy Visitation on behalf of the Congregation, left in Greenmount a report that said nothing about sexual abuse and confined itself to pious exhortations. It seems that Br Blanco interviewed boys and took at least one written statement, although no record of these interviews survives. Neither is there any report from Br Blanco to the General Council regarding the matter. A series of notes in diary form kept by the Superior General, Br Gomez,27 at the time sheds light on the sequence of events.
25 26 27
4.109
4.110
4.111
169
4.112
On 29th November, two days into the Blanco Visitation, Br Gomez recorded that Brother Blanco called on Canon who said he had no doubt about their guilt. In his diary, Br Gomez records that on 5th December: Bishop phoned at 7 p.m. to call on him. I understood he had no doubt of their guilt. Told me that he had called in Canon David to hold visitation at Greenmount and to call for him the following day at Bishops House to bring him to [Greenmount].
4.113
4.114
The following day, Br Gomez collected Canon David and recorded in the diary: Asked Canon David when boys and Bros. had been interviewed if he wanted to see Bros. Carlito & Garcia & he said yes. Phoned them at Passage W. & they came along within half an hour. Returning from Greenmount with Canon David he asked if a Brother had been holding visitation there. I said yes but he had not yet delivered his report on visitation. In that case he said he would say nothing.
4.115
It is not known why the bishop ordered his own investigation. However, Fr Andrew, the School chaplain when these investigations were carried out, recalled to Professor Keogh that a Mill Hill Father (he could not recall the name although it seems clear that the source of the allegations was Fr Brendan, the Mill Hill Father who had previously raised the issue of immorality amongst the boys) had made an allegation to the parish priest of the Lough, the parish in which the School was located, that two members of the Greenmount Community were involved in an abusive relationship with a number of the boys, and he reported the matter to the Bishop. Fr Andrew said that Bishop Lucey is believed to have visited the house of the senior curate in the Lough, Fr Charles,28 in order to interview a number of the Greenmount boys, and the bishop is believed to have conducted these interviews without revealing his identity. If that is what happened, it would explain why the bishop ordered the canonical investigation. On 8th December, the bishop told Br Gomez, during the course of a telephone conversation, that he would see Brs Carlito and Garcia, who were back at Greenmount following the Canons visit, if they wished to see him. Br Gomez made an appointment for the Brothers to see the bishop the following day. Fr Brendan, from Mill Hill, appears to have interviewed a number of boys who presumably made the allegations which led to the investigations. According to the notes made by Br Gomez, Br Carlito, the Resident Manager, assembled a number of boys including two with whom he had been accused of engaging in sexual activity. He questioned the two boys in front of the other boys as to the truth of the allegations. One denied the allegation and the other, who had since left the School, said that he was asked so many questions that he was confused. Br Carlito told him it was his duty to go to Fr Brendan and make the matter clear to him in writing. There appears to have been a struggle going on between the Superior, who was seeking exculpation, and Fr Brendan, who had received some of the complaints and passed them on. The Superior Generals diary records: Fr Brendan told the boys 1. it would be a mortal sin to divulge the interview to the Brother 2. if they did they would have to go to the Bishop 3. they could be put to gaol.
28
4.116
4.117
4.118
170
4.119
The note continues: Superior Carlito assembled the boys interviewed by Fr. Brendan and told them that any words he was using were not in secret and could be used if they were ever interviewed and that he was using no threats or bribes if you think that what you have said is true stick to it but you must prove it. If you think what you said is untrue be honourable enough to admit it. He would follow this up [to] the very end ...
4.120
On 27th December, Br Carlito resigned as Resident Manager but remained a member of the Congregation. The Synopsis of his Service History provided by the Department of Education indicates that he taught in a number of different schools until he reached retirement. He died at an advanced age before the Committee began its hearings into Greenmount. Br Garcia furnished medical evidence that he was incapable of testifying before the Committee, but he did provide a statement dealing with these events: I learned of these allegations in circumstances when I was walking along the corridor in Greenmount Industrial School and Br Allente approached me and told me that I and another Brother were to go to the Bishops Palace to speak to Bishop Cornelius Lucey who was then the Bishop of Cork ... At this remove in time I have difficulty recalling the precise allegations as related to me by Bishop Lucey. In general terms the allegations were to the effect that children were being abused in the school and that I was being blamed. I immediately denied those allegations to the Bishop and I inquired as to who had made these allegations against me. Bishop Lucey would not provide these names. I also inquired as to what individual had made the complaint and I did not get that name either. I was then told to leave. Some time later I was invited again to the Bishops Palace and had a discussion again with the Bishop about alleged sexual abuse in which I was allegedly involved. I immediately denied any such involvement in this type of activity. I was invited back again on a third separate occasion and I inquired of the Bishop as to when all of this was going to end and I was told by the Bishop that there was no smoke without fire. I became extremely upset about the way in which this matter was being handled and took the view that if this was the way that matters were being dealt with that I would be better off out of the Presentation Brothers.
4.121
4.122
He continued teaching in the School until his dispensation was granted in February 1956: I remember leaving Greenmount on a Friday and commencing teaching at Waterford on the following Monday where I had secured a post.
4.123
Fr Andrew was chaplain to the School from the mid-1950s to the early 1970s. In a letter dated 29th December 2005, he stated: I wish to state clearly that during my years as chaplain, I saw no evidence whatever of physical or sexual abuse.
4.124
However, he said that he had heard rumours about abuse in the School. He stressed that this was clearly hearsay, but he was happy to pass it on ... as it may help to clarify some aspects of the Commissions enquiries: Much of what I heard about enquiries into abuse in Greenmount came from young Mill Hill community priests who were studying for the Higher Diploma in education in University College, Cork ... Some information may also have come from Fr. Charles ... It was probably he who informed me that I was being excluded from the enquiries because I was hearing Confessions in Greenmount. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 171
I believe that there were altogether three distinct enquiries into abuse in Greenmount while I was chaplain there. The only one of which I was aware at the time was under the care of Rev. Charles, curate in the Lough Parish (long since deceased.) I believe that this enquiry was a formal Canonical Visitation, done by V. Rev. Mons. David.. I never saw him while he was in Cork. 4.125 He did not know what action, if any, the Diocese took as a result of the inquiry, but he believed that a number of Brothers either left the Congregation or were transferred elsewhere. When Fr Andrew heard of possible problems in Greenmount many years later, he informed the Diocesan authorities of the Canon David investigation, but was told that there was no Canon David report on file. Fr Andrew stated that he later heard from Sr Vita,29 who had been in charge of the Boys Junior Industrial School at Passage West, a feeder school for Greenmount and Upton, that Bishop Lucey had visited her and directed her not to transfer boys to the two senior schools mentioned, thus contributing to the closure of those schools.
4.126
Br Carlitos later career

Early 1970s 4.127 In the late 1990s, an individual approached the Presentation Brothers with allegations that Br Carlito had sexually abused him during the 1970s, while he was a resident at an orphanage run by another Congregation and attended the nearby monastery school. Br Carlito was teaching at the school. Br Carlito taught in this school from the mid-1960s until the mid-1970s. The man making this allegation met with the Superior of the monastery and told him that Br Carlito had abused him. The Superior then met the Regional Leader, Br Hilario,30 to whom he gave the following two-page report: He told me he had been in an Orphanage in the local ... Convent. Bro C. used to visit often. One day a boy broke his leg in the yard and was in ... hospital. Bro C took on a motorbike to see him. That the first time abuse started. Then Bro C used to bring to the monastery and take him up to his own room. Brought him to see Leeds v Sunderland Cup Final on T.V. in monastery then abuse. Usually gave him 2/-. Stopped around the time the Orphanage closed ... Is undergoing Counselling. To see me & tell me was part of the healing process ... 4.129 Br Hilario recorded these events in a memorandum. Following his meeting with the Superior, Br Hilario telephoned the man: I assured him that I believed his story and that I would be quite prepared to listen to him if he so wished. 4.130 They subsequently met and the man repeated the allegations: Brother Carlito was a regular visitor to the Orphanage. He took the boys on cycling trips ... at weekends. When he was in 3rd or 4th class the abuse began. A lot of grooming had taken place before it started. Another boy from the Orphanage broke his leg and was in hospital ... Brother Carlito took him on a motorbike to visit him. This was the start of the abuse [the man] gave no indication as to the nature of the abuse or where it took place. He was vague on dates. When questioned he said he was eleven or twelve at the time. (It seemed to me that eleven or twelve was old for a boy in 3rd or 4th class but I did not
29 30
4.128
172
comment on this.) [the man] said he had been abused on four occasions ... Brother Carlito would take him to his bedroom and take down my pants He remembers going to the monastery to view the Cup Final between Leeds and Sunderland; He then went on to talk about further abuse. Brother Carlito lay on the bed and placed me on his belly. I got frightened and so did he, I think. 4.131 The man told Br Hilario that he did not want to report the matter to the Garda. He did not see any benefit in putting an old man in gaol that would not be any good to him. When asked how he felt the Presentation Brothers could be of help to him, he replied compensation, I suppose. A representative of the Congregation met Br Carlito subsequently in relation to this complaint, and recorded the outcome of the meeting in a note prepared for the Congregations legal representatives. He told Br Carlito of the allegation: He did not interrupt or comment while I was relating the story. When I finished he said This is terrible just when I was recovering this pushes me back down again. ... I told him the Gardai were not approached. 4.133 Br Carlito recalled the man as a pupil, although he had not taught him. He said that he had been good to him and that he couldnt remember any abuse taking place. Br Carlito continued: I am very surprised as I was extra good to him. I even gave him money now and then ... I gave him 2 or 3 pounds now and then. I even sent him money after I left ... but I have not seen or heard from him since. Why did he wait so long? I cannot remember interfering with him. 4.135 When it was explained to him that such a time lapse in coming forward was common, that people felt ashamed and guilty about what had happened, and that it took a lot of courage to tell their story, Br Carlito said If I did it to him I must be inclined to do it to others. When asked whether he remembered feeling attracted to do this with boys, he replied I cant remember this attraction. He said that the boy could have been in his room, but not for that purpose. Br Carlito said that he was flabbergasted and dumbfounded. This knocks me back altogether. There is nothing for me now but Ahadoe [graveyard] and the sooner the better. I can now understand how easy suicide is. Br Hilario met with Br Carlito a few days later, when Br Carlito made a statement maintaining: I am not saying it did not take place but I have no recollection of it happening. I think it is better for all concerned if I dont deny it completely. The late 1970s 4.139 In 1978, the parent of a child at a national school made a complaint that Br Carlito had interfered with her child. Br Carlito was working as an assistant teacher in the School at the time. The Committee has not seen any documentary material in relation to this complaint. However, it is clear from the Synopsis of his Service History provided by the Department of Education that Br Carlito remained in the School until he was transferred in 1979. The mid-1990s 4.140 In the mid-1990s, the Garda questioned Br Carlito in relation to an allegation that he had sexually interfered with a three-and-a-half-year-old boy on a number of different occasions. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 173
4.132
4.134
4.136
4.137
4.138
4.141 4.142
The childs mother said that she took her son to a doctor as a result of the abuse. Br Carlito made a statement to the Garda and told his superiors of the allegation. The matter was immediately reported to the Provincial, Br Amador,31 who dispatched the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Child Sexual Abuse, Br Manuel,32 to interview Br Carlito. Br Manuel reported: He denied all the allegations and declared that there was no truth in any of them. He had no recollection of the child ever been in the house but he was certain that he never sexually interfered with him or any other child or youth who may have entered the house for the purpose of receiving musical tuition from him. He had always been careful to give tuition to groups and never to individuals and his students were always in the older age group of 1014 years. He could not comprehend how anyone could accuse him of the offence and he knew of no one who would want to frame him.
4.143
The Provincials diary states: Later that evening I phoned Br Manuel to inquire of his findings and he felt there may be some grounds for concern but had serious doubts.
4.144
The Provincial consulted a member of the Conference of Religious in Ireland and decided to move Br Carlito lest his presence ... further aggravate any possible hurt to the alleged victim and family. Br Amadors diary referred to a meeting with the Garda: I have only one note of that meeting which is a comment by Sgt. ... to the effect that a child of three and a half does not concoct such stories. He asked if there were any other such allegations against Br Carlito and I said I was not aware of any as otherwise I would not have posted him [to the School].
4.145
4.146
The Presentation Brothers engaged solicitors to act for Br Carlito. One month later, the principal in the firm wrote to Br Amador informing him of recent developments: Three children from the locality have alleged that they have been sexually interfered with. All three have been medically examined and two of the three have been physically interfered with they have been buggered. One of these two children ... has identified Br Carlito as having interfered with him ... Brother Carlito is not known personally to me. His denials of the matter appear totally genuine. I very much doubt if, at 79 years of age, he should suddenly develop tendencies of this nature ...
4.147
Br Carlito was not prosecuted. However, it is clear from the above that neither the Garda nor Br Carlitos solicitor were aware of the previous allegations which had been made against Br Carlito in Greenmount and which had led to his resignation from the School.
4.148
It is not clear that the investigation in 1955 established that the Brothers were guilty of the charges made against them. The two Brothers protested their innocence, and surviving documents do not reveal the results of the investigations. What is clear is that the bishop and his senior clerical investigator believed that Brs Carlito and Garcia had engaged in sexual abuse of boys. Nevertheless, the two men were permitted to move on to new positions dealing with children. There was no question of reporting them to the Garda. While it is impossible to be sure from the documents, the probability is that these complaints about sexual abuse came to light because boys felt able to confide in the
31 32
174
young volunteer priest who visited the School. This would conform with a pattern that was seen in other institutions, whereby children were able to report abuse to a sympathetic adult when a suitable opportunity presented.
The involvement of the Bishop ensured that the complaints were taken seriously and investigated. Further allegations of sexual abuse dogged Br Carlitos subsequent career. When the Garda were investigating one set of complaints of sexual abuse in the mid-1990s, the information supplied by a senior member of the Congregation was seriously misleading.
4.149 One complainant, Michael,33 gave evidence of being abused by Br Garcia. He had been in Greenmount in the late 1940s and was discharged in the early 1950s. Michael said that he was about 12 when the abuse started, and that Br Garcia anally raped him about four or five times. He said that he ran away from the School and went with a friend to the local Chief Superintendent in Cork, Superintendent Caffrey,34 because his father worked for him and he knew him. Michael told the superintendent about the abuse. Michael had faith in the Superintendent because he was such a senior figure in Cork, but did not tell his parents what was happening because he did not think it was proper to speak to his mother and father like that. Michael recalled his meeting with the superintendent: So, he said "what's wrong?" I said "there is a Brother and he's interfering with all the lads in Greenmount". Right? He said to me "Michael", he said to me "they don't do that". Well, I says, "Superintendent Caffrey, it is happening". So he said "I can only bring you up to Bishop Cohalan". 4.152 He brought Michael and his friend to see the bishop: ... he brought me in a police car ... he was in the front and myself and [my friend] were in the back and ... he drove up there anyway. The bishop was there anyway and Superintendent Caffrey went in. He said "there is two lads here from Greenmount". That's what I presume he said to the bishop ... He went in first and he left us to wait. Then whatever conversation they had he called me and [my friend] in. He said "tell the bishop what's happening?" So we told him that we can't go to sleep at night, that this man is tormenting us, we can't go to the toilets or anything. Because Br. Garcia was in charge of the dormitory, right. That was his he was in charge. So, Bishop Cohalan said "the Christian Brothers (sic) don't do these things at all". He said "you are two devils". He said "I am going to get ye excommunicated". We were more frightened than anything. So we came back out with Superintendent Caffrey ... and the sergeant drove us up to the School ... the next morning then we got a flogging. 4.153 4.154 Bishop Cohalan was in his nineties when this allegation was made to him. In their statement in response to Michaels allegations against Br Garcia, the Presentation Brothers made no mention of the canonical inquiry of the mid-1950s. Br Minehane who, in his direct evidence to the Investigation Committee, acknowledged that he was aware of the canonical inquiry, signed the statement on behalf of the Presentation Brothers and stated:
33 34
4.150
4.151
175
The Complainant makes the most appalling allegations against Br. Garcia ... It seems likely that the Complainant was taught by Br. Garcia. Br. Garcia is now [real name]. He strongly denies all of the Complainants allegations. 4.155 In the course of the hearing, counsel for the Congregation stated: Our difficulty in relation to this is that we don't have records in relation to this particular aspect of matters and unfortunately the persons who would have been in a position to say exactly what went on at the time are deceased or unavailable. 4.156 4.157 Br Garcia was represented at the hearing and denied the allegations made against him. Another witness recalled events surrounding Br Garcias departure. He told the Committee: Some of the boys were getting taken out of bed and they would go to the Brother's room at night ... I was in a very good position to see it happening ... My bed was right opposite the door ... [The Brothers] had a room annexed to the dormitory itself ... [He] used to come in, tap the bed, walk up the dormitory, walk back down and he'd walk out first. 4.158 He explained there were four or five beds the Brother would choose from. He would walk in, tap the bed, Go back out and then that lad would get up and go out. The boy would come back maybe an hour afterwards. He named the Brother as Br Garcia. The witness explained, I knew two of the lads personally. One of them used have cigarettes all the time and I used say "where did you get them? He told him they had been given to him by Br Garcia. Recalling the circumstances of Br Garcias leaving, he said: ... after Br Garcia and Br Carlito left everyone was talking about it ... It happened so sudden ... He was there one day and he was gone the next. It went around the School then that he was gone, him and the Superior. Obviously, Br Carlito was the Superior, the head Brother, so everyone noticed him gone. 4.160 Another witness who was in Greenmount in the early 1950s described being physically and sexually abused by a Brother who he described as being a fat man. He stated that this abuse occurred in an office which was identified by the Congregation as being the Superiors office. In their responding statement to the witnesss statement of complaint, the Congregation said: During the complainants time at Greenmount there were three Superiors. None of them matches the complainants description as a big fat man.
4.159
Peer abuse
4.161 Nine former residents of Greenmount were prosecuted and sentenced for offences of indecency in the mid-1930s. A further three former residents of Upton Industrial School were also sentenced for similar offences. All of the young men who had spent time in Greenmount ranged from 15 to 19 years of age. The Department of Education received an anonymous letter from the parent of one of the convicted youths after sentence was handed down. The letter stated that the boy had spent eight years in Greenmount, despite an application made by his parent to have him released. It alleged that such sexual conduct had been prevalent in Greenmount for the previous nine years, and named a particular teacher who was complicit in such activity. The Garda were seeking him. The whole thing was the talk of Cork City. The writer requested that the Department requisition all of these cases from the court office or the Garda so that the full extent of the problem could be exposed, as the Monks of the school was trying to keep this Case Dark. It added, my boy was 176 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
4.162
8 years going in to the school ... so he got his lesson in the school. Any child is safer at Home. The letter ended, the school should be closed down. 4.163 The Department Inspector, in an internal memorandum, noted that the Medical Inspector had heard certain rumours about the School and suggested that the local chief superintendent be contacted for a full report. Around the same time, the Attorney Generals office made contact with the Department of Education, furnishing copies of the depositions in the 12 cases. Many of the defendants had asserted that their misconduct stemmed from their time in industrial schools. The Attorney General was of the view that closer supervision of the older boys would discourage such unfortunate habits, and furnished the Department with the information in the hope that the Minister in collaboration with the School Authorities may be able to devise some means of keeping the number of such cases in future at the lowest possible level. An extract from the prosecuting counsels report was also furnished, which stated ominously, ... the revelations about Upton and Greenmount at this sittings have given me furiously to think about Industrial Schools and Religious Orders .... The Department arranged for a special Inspection of the two schools in question to take place. An Industrial Schools Inspector and the Deputy Chief Inspector of the Primary Branch were nominated to conduct the Inspections. Their general brief was to ... enquire into the supervision exercised over the boys, and the measures taken to prevent or put an end to the occurrences, which gave rise to the recent cases before the Cork Courts. The Department decided against bringing the matter specifically to the attention of the bishop, on the basis that it had to be assumed that he was already aware of the matter. The Inspectors conducted their Inspections over two days. They noted that the children were supervised by teachers during school and trades training, and by the Brothers during recreation. Night watchmen patrolled the dormitories at night time. The Resident Manager, who appeared to have been very much affected by the incidents, stated he had no intention of concealing them from the Department but that the worry of the cases caused him to overlook reporting the matter. He confirmed that both the Garda and an ISPCC Inspector had questioned the children as part of their enquiries. The Manager assured them that stricter controls were in place to ensure that any such misconduct did not occur, and he was satisfied that the problem had been eradicated in the School. The Department of Education Inspectors concluded that: ... consistent with the normal freedom of the children the supervision exercised in both schools is adequate in ordinary circumstances and the recent occurrences will tend to keep the school authorities on the alert: from what we have learned, however, there is an ever present danger of these cases arising no matter how well planned the supervision and this danger is aggravated when, as in the case of Greenmount, a member of the staff is known to have been implicated. The problem, as we understand it, is for obvious reasons a most difficult one to deal with and we consider the only action that can be taken is to impress on the Manager (verbally for preference) of each boys school the possibility of such cases occurring and the necessity for close and constant supervision of the boys, especially the senior boys, i.e. boys over 14 years of age, in all their activities. 4.168 The Minister for Education approved this recommendation, and the Departments enquiry into the matter was closed. The Inspectors do not appear to have spoken to the children as part of their enquiry, and seem to have accepted the assurances of the Resident Manager that sexual activity was no longer a problem in the School. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 177
4.164
4.165
4.166
4.167
4.169
4.170
There is further reference to sexual activity among boys contained in the reports of the Provincial to the General Council of the Presentation Brothers in the mid-1950s. Despite the Provincial being assured by the Resident Manager, Br Carlito, that the boys were at all times well supervised, he received a report shortly after visiting the School from a member of another Community that the boys in Greenmount were engaging in immoral practices. When this allegation was put to the Resident Manager, he accepted that he was aware of the problem and had taken steps to deal with the issue, which involved separating the culprits in the dormitories and requesting the night watchman to be particularly vigilant. No advice or direction given by the Provincial is recorded, and the issue does not arise in subsequent reports.
4.171 The difficulty of trying to control sexual behaviour among the boys emerged from the evidence of a former resident who was transferred to Daingean because he was twice caught engaging in sexual activity with his peers. He was admitted to Greenmount in the early 1950s when he was eight years old. He said he learnt about sex from the older boys, and added it was going on with all the boys. He would masturbate the older boys and sometimes had anal intercourse. He said: It is a very powerful thing, you may shy away from it to start. You see, I see the sexual business as a disease, but once you start getting the feel for it it is like wanting sugar. 4.172 As time went on, he began to engage in sexual activity with younger boys. He pondered the irony of it all: I became an abuser myself of a form, that is the way it goes. So because I was put in, locked up in the first place for committing no crime I ended up committing some kind of crime in the second place ... 4.173 When asked whether there was any awareness by the adults in charge in Greenmount of the sexual activity amongst the boys, he said I can only assume that they must have had some idea.
4.174
Sexual activity between boys and peer abuse were serious problems in Greenmount. Despite assurances that it would be dealt with the problem persisted.
Emotional abuse
4.175 In their Opening Statement on Greenmount, the Presentation Brothers expressed the view that industrial schools were a flawed model, doomed to failure. They wrote: Up until the 1960s there was a popularly held belief in Ireland that industrial schools were an institutional response to cope with the problem of petty crime and delinquency by young people. This was a misconception. Children convicted of minor criminal offences were often admitted to industrial schools, But that was usually because they had strayed into breaking the law due to the absence of parental supervision and neglect. Children were also admitted for non-attendance at school. That was, again, usually a consequence of difficult family circumstances. Where one parent had died or departed, an older child might be required to remain at home in order to rear the other children in the family. The consequences of social and economic deprivation were addressed by breaking up whole families, the boys being sent to the Brothers and girls to the nuns. It is clear that, in hindsight, the industrial school system was not, and could never be, a success. It was based on a flawed model. No one today would seriously argue that an institution operating on then approved lines, such as Greenmount, represented an adequate response to serious social problems suffered by some of the most vulnerable elements in society. No one would tolerate the Courts regularly making orders having the effect of separating so many children from their families for up to 8 years. No one would 178 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
suggest that a child could be raised on the modern equivalent of 22 shillings a week: indeed it appears that that task was beyond the Presentation Brothers at that time. (the Presentation Brothers informed the then Minister for Education, Mr Jack Lynch T. D., that it was not possible to feed and clothe boys on 22/6 per week in the late 1950s). No one would suggest that neglected and abandoned children should be housed and cared for together with, and in the same fashion as, young offenders. No one would consider lodging such a large number of children of varying ages in single institution with so few carers. 4.176 They went on to point out that many of the flaws in the system were apparent in 1936, when the Cussen Commission reported but Cussens recommended reforms were not implemented, and a further 34 years passed before Ireland was prepared to abandon the industrial school as a means of child care. The Presentation Brothers make several important observations: 1. Most of the children were not criminals but were disturbed because they had experienced death, or family upheaval, neglect and poverty. 2. The court orders removing them from their families for periods of up to eight years made matters worse. 3. Separating siblings further broke up the family and thereby caused more distress. 4. The prison-like containment of these children in large secure buildings was inappropriate and further isolated them from society. 5. It was detrimental to lodge neglected and abandoned children with hardened delinquents. 6. The number of carers was inadequate, and the funds needed to educate and rehabilitate the disadvantaged children were far short of what was needed. 4.178 The Statement suggests these flaws became apparent only with hindsight. Moreover, the Presentation Brothers blame the failures of the industrial school system on the acceptance of such a model by society. The report prepared by Professor Keogh ends with the conclusion: In the public debate in the 1990s on the running of Irish industrial schools attention has correctly focussed on the manner in which the religious performed their duties. It is necessary, however, to subject the role of the state to scrutiny. After all, it had the ultimate responsibility for the running of those institutions ... It is a harsh but nevertheless valid verdict on the performance of the Irish state in such a central and sensitive social policy area it arrived with unjustifiable, glacial-like slowness at the conclusion only in 1970 that the industrial school system was outdated, outmoded and obsolete. 4.179 The question arises as to why so many of the conclusions that were obvious after 1970 were not evident much earlier. One witness, who was in Greenmount for a year in the mid-1940s, was the second eldest of seven children. His father worked in England during the war, and the family were regularly summonsed for non-attendance at school. He told the Committee: When we were sentenced we went with a guard ... There was me, [my two brothers, the Garda], and my Mam we were taken to the industrial school. We were taken in. My Mam was crying and we were crying. Then my Mam came out, the guard came out and we were there, that was our sentence, we were there then for four years, whatever we were sentenced to. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 179
4.177
4.180
4.181
While he was in Greenmount, his older brother died from tubercular meningitis. He recalled this event: when we went to the infirmary, me and [my younger brother], like I said, we were so close, we asked to see him but we were not allowed to see him ... He went into the infirmary and then they moved him out through we used call it the union, which was the hospital in Cork, and the next time I saw my brother ... was when he was in the death house, when he was laid out. That's the only time I seen him ... when I found out how he was dead, we came from school and we were in the playground, or the yard, or whatever you call it, and we were going into the dinner and we went into dinner and the boy next to me said " [your brother] is dead". That's how I found out. It just came like that ... I went spare. There was such a shock, even when he was in hospital we didn't know what he was there for. When we were in the infirmary we asked to see him but we weren't allowed to see him.
4.182
He also talked about the difficulty they had in relation to contact with their mother: She used come to visit us but she weren't let in. So I didn't have difficulty contacting her, I wasn't allowed ... She told us she was turned away. Even if we seen her there was nothing we could do about it, she was turned away. Br Arrio used say no, she's not coming in because she used to bring us food parcels ... she was turned away. Sometimes we used get them.
4.183
Another witness, who was there in the 1950s, recounted how he found out, when he was about 13, that his mother was alive. He had been admitted into Greenmount from another institution where he had been since a baby. He told the Committee how he made this discovery: I never knew [my] father, no, or my mother ... I didn't know anything about her at all ... It came about because people in the School used to write home, if they had parents they were allowed to write home once a month their parents and if you didn't write home you went to the back of the class. I think it [was] Br. Allente, I think that's his name, names are hard to come by now. He said, "Don't you write to anybody?" I said, "No, I don't." About three months later as I went into the classroom, on a blackboard on an easel which [a womans name and address] and I was told write to that person. That's your mother ... I did write to her under duress at that time. [She wrote back] and she told me I had two stepsisters ... I never had contact with her other than writing ... I have tried various times to contact her but the advice given by the local police and by the local parish priest was that it is best left alone after all those years. On one visit to Ireland, my son was eight at the time, I actually drove up from Cork ... and parked outside the assumed address and just parked and then drove away again. Because one didn't want to go and knock on a door and say, "I'm your son", because the mother has feelings as well, she has had her life since I have not been there so I didn't want to interrupt. It has impacted very much so, because when I went to England you don't have anybody to relate to, so you are always worrying I don't know, it is hard to explain but if your parents are missing, if you don't know where they are or who your parents are your peace of mind is even to go there at the end if I come over this year or next year to Ireland, even if she has passed away, it would be to see the grave and say that's laid to rest now and there is no further gain to be got. But it has impacted. It impacts throughout your whole life because when you have your own family you have no role models, you have nothing to bring up your family.
4.184
The Brother in this case noticed the loneliness of this boy who knew nothing of his parents. He did his best to help the son contact his mother. This witness remembered him as the Brother who found his mother for him. 180 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
4.185
This same witness spoke well of a system, set up by the Presentation Brothers, where boys were sent to visit families in Cork on a regular basis. He said: Say for arguments sake, every first Sunday of the month, I think it was every first Sunday of the month, one of the families in Cork would take one of the orphans out to their home and you would spend a day in their home. At the end of the day they might give you lemon sweets or something to take back, a little bag of sweets.
4.186
The importance of this regular contact with a family emerged when he disclosed to them that an older boy was bullying him. He explained the circumstances: I think what actually triggered it off, because I didnt confide in them, you didnt have a lot to say to people actually, you were just taken and if they said Get in the car you got in the car. If they said dinner was ready you ate your dinner. You didnt confide in them in so much as what school was about, you actually didnt. It came about when she made this awful red and white coat, or red and black coat for me that made me look like it was a sort of girls outfit and I started to cry and it just happened from there on. So sort of one thing led to another and it was an emotion that was coming out. I didnt specifically go and say, I have been beaten up. So it sort of came out from that particular incident. I wouldnt wear the coat.
4.187
He learned later, when he was going to work and calling back to visit this family from time to time, that they had complained to Greenmount on his behalf. His attachment to this family, the first he had known because he was raised in institutions, revealed the importance of such relationships to a maturing child. By arranging such weekends, the Presentation Brothers were showing their awareness that the children needed more than the Institution could provide. The warning in the 1901 Visitation Report remained part of the culture: Familiarities with the boys should be most cautiously guarded against, being most hurtful to boys and Brothers ... there should always be maintained a reserve that would keep them at a proper distance and enable them to have for the Brothers that respect due to their position.
4.188
4.189
Many Brothers remained remote figures, who kept control, but who did not show warmth or sympathy and, in their turn, the children learned not to show their feelings. An injury was done to both parties by this unnatural suppression of feelings. Without an adult as a protector and confidante, the orphans clung to each other and formed a bond. One witness told the Committee: ... we used to confide in each [other] quite a bit, and more so the people who didnt have families outside were more vulnerable because we didnt have anybody to complain to and we always sort of knitted together, if you didnt have a mother and father you sort of knitted with people of that ilk, because you the others were different. They were actually different from us, the boys from outside, they had a different way of doing things, different outlook because they always saw something on the outside, we never saw anything on the outside ...
4.190
4.191
These boys were not just cut off from the outside world: they were cut off from people who knew the outside world. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 181
Contact with families

4.192 Greenmount had a major advantage being in Cork city, and so contact with families was easily arranged. Boys from Cork city were allowed home visits on the first Sunday of every month. Boys whose families lived further away were allowed home on summer holidays. In the 1940 annual report from the Brothers to the Department of Education, the Resident Manager noted: I believe the Home Leave and Sunday outings have a very beneficial effect the Boys being kept in touch with their relations and friends, and they grow up having some knowledge of the outside world as well as breaking up the monotony of every day school life. 4.193 As illustrated above, those who had no families to go home to were sometimes sent to a sponsoring family on Sundays and for summer holidays. Many boys benefited from this regular contact with family life. When Bishop Lucey visited the School in 1955, he expressed the view that the boys should be let out as much as possible so as by the time they would be finished here, they would have some idea of outside world. Boys who were placed in orphanages from their very early childhood suffered from being totally ignorant of their family roots. One witness told the Committee of how his mother left him in Rathdrum when he was six, visited him on the day of his admission, and that was it. He never saw her again. Subsequently, he made contact with his maternal uncle by chance: When I joined the army in Cork the recruiting sergeant asked me my name and he said, Did your uncle work here? or Was your uncle in the army? I says, I dont know if I have any uncle. Thats how I found out he was in the army. 4.195 4.196 He met his uncle, but they were unable to find his mother. He never knew if she was alive or dead. He spent a total of nine years and three months in institutions. That still rankled with him. He said, simply, My childhood was taken away.
4.194
Neglect
Department of Education General Inspection Reports
4.197 The main source of contemporary evidence about conditions in Greenmount is Inspection Reports of Dr Anna McCabe, who was appointed Medical Inspector of Industrial and Reformatory Schools on 3rd April 1939. She held the post until 8th March 1965. She also carried out general inspections of the schools. Her first impression in 1939 was positive, and she could not find fault with any aspect of the School. However, her report in 1943 was critical of the patched and tattered appearance of the childrens clothes. It was only in the late 1940s that she expressed satisfaction with the quality of the childrens clothing. During this period, she also expressed dissatisfaction with the childrens diet. On consulting weight charts, she noticed that a number of children had not increased in weight. Added to this concern was the fact that there had been several cases of TB in the School. She recommended that the Department write to the Resident Manager, advising that the rations of milk and butter given to each child be increased to ensure that each child received at least a pint of milk a day. They did this and also advised that each child receive a quarter pound of meat at each meal at which meat was served. The Resident Manager responded, confirming that they would use their best endeavours to increase rations despite our crushing debt. 182 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
4.198
4.199
4.200
With regard to the outbreak of TB, Dr McCabe met with the Schools medical officer, who was anxious that the entire School be investigated, and Dr McCabe made representations to the local TB Officer in Cork. He did not share the same anxieties, but agreed to carry out an investigation of the School if further cases emerged. In 1947, Dr McCabe noted that the food and diet had much improved and that the children looked healthy and well. Dr McCabe was absent due to illness for periods in the late 1940s and early 1950s. There is a note that she inspected the School in 1951, but a record of this report is not available. The next report of note is dated November 1953. Br Domingo35 had recently taken over the position of Resident Manager. She noted in her report that, by his own admission, he did not have any experience of running an industrial school. She made a number of suggestions for improvements, including the instalment of up-to-date kitchen equipment, and improved clothing and diet. She also discovered, on visiting the bakery, that the ventilation system was not working and that fumes were being released inside. The Department followed up this latter issue by writing to the Resident Manager, requesting confirmation that the matter had been attended to, and a reply was received by return confirming that measures had been taken to ensure that the problem did not arise again. When she visited the School next, almost a year later, Br Carlito had taken over as Resident Manager. He also informed her that he had little in the way of experience in running an industrial school. She noted the School had recently been redecorated but was in need of modernisation in many respects. Three months later, Dr McCabe was requested to carry out another Inspection of the School, after the mother of a resident complained to the Department that her son had head lice. In general terms, she noted a decline in the standards at the School, which she suggested may have had something to do with the inexperience of the new Resident Manager. She inspected each childs head and was dismayed to find 35 boys with nits in their heads and 12 verminous. I consider a shocking state of affairs. Br Carlito attempted to apportion blame to the School nurse, who he said insisted that her remit extended only to treating sick children. Dr McCabe noted that the majority of the boys who had contracted head lice were in the age group 8 to 12 years, and she felt that the problem stemmed from a lack of supervision of the boys personal hygiene. She suggested that the nurses salary be increased, in return for her agreement to supervise the boys in the dressing room to ensure that they washed properly. The following year, Dr McCabe observed many improvements. The redecorating of the School continued, new equipment had been introduced to the kitchen, the childrens health was very good, and their clothing had improved. Br Carlito indicated to her that he was concerned about falling numbers in the School. When Dr McCabe next visited the School in November 1956, Br Santiago had taken over the post of Resident Manager. She described him as a great improvement on the previous man, although she had not expressed reservations about the Resident Manager in her previous years report. While she noted that the School was well run, the boys clothing once again came in for criticism. She noticed that many of the shirts had no buttons. She also highlighted the need for each boy to be given a toothbrush and to ensure that they used them. The 1957 report is again critical of many aspects of the School. Even though efforts at redecoration had been made, she stated that so much needs to be done to make this School bright and attractive. The play hall was dank and unattractive. Despite the improvements in the kitchen, the
35
4.201
4.202
4.203
4.204
4.205
4.206
4.207
183
cooking methods used were still very antiquated. Clothing had slightly improved, in that the boys were given waistcoats, but there was still much room for improvement. The Resident Manager put these deficiencies down to a lack of funds. On a more positive note, Dr McCabe emphasised that the supervision and medical care of the boys was very good. 4.208 Dr McCabes final Inspection of Greenmount took place on 29th October 1958. She stated that Br Santiago and the nurse were both attentive and kind to the boys. She noted a slight improvement in the boys clothing. She recommended several improvements, that Br Santiago seemed to take on board. She emphasised the need to brighten up the School by further redecoration. In 1949, a Fine Gael Councillor wrote to the Department of Education regarding complaints he had received in relation to conditions in Greenmount. His letter was in response to the most recent complaint he had received from a mother of a boy in Greenmount. Her 11-year-old boy had been sent to Greenmount because she and her husband were being treated for TB, and they had no option but to have their young family committed to industrial schools. She made representations to the Councillor to assist her in having her son released into the care of her father, after she discovered that he was not well cared for in Greenmount. She had found his clothes crawling with vermin. The Councillor wrote: For some time past this Executive has been receiving complaints regarding the treatment given to the boys at Greenmount. The boys are made get up at 7a.m. and have to wash portion of the dormitories before breakfast which consists of a cup of black coffee and a couple of slices of dry bread. After this they go to school until 2.30p.m. when they get their next meal, which, on one day last week consisted of potatoes and lemonade. Besides this we have received at last four complaints regarding the verminous state of the childrens clothes, and I have myself verified one case ... These complaints have become so numerous that we were considering whether to report it to the City Health Authorities and the Minister for Health. It is of no use making any official enquiries. The only way to get at the root of all these complaints is to have some of the Health and Education Authorities visit the place without warning. We dont like having to report things like this, as they only create trouble but the time has come when something has to be done about them. 4.211 The Minister asked Dr Anna McCabe, the Departments Medical Inspector, to investigate the matter and report her findings directly to him. Also at this time, a Garda from Union Quay Station wrote to the Department of Education requesting that, the next time an Inspector was in Cork, they call him regarding a matter which he did not wish to commit to paper. He wrote again some weeks later, after a telephone conversation with an official from the Department of Education, and this time the Garda set out his concerns: For some time past I have been receiving complaint from parents having children in Greenmount Ind Schools, these complaints are in respect of clothing and food. One mother complained that a child of hers is in School 12 months and he has the same pair of boots on him as he took in with him, that he has colds continually from neglect. I have got several complaints recently about footwear from parents having children in this School. A number of complaints have also been received about food which appears to be of poor quality. One complaint was that soup supplied to the children is a week old and sour when given to them. No tea and no sugar or coffee or cocoa, bread very scant supply with no butter only margarine. I am not relying on all the complaints received, to be genuine but I have the word of a lady Cook who worked there and has no reason for confirming the complaints I have received for some time. I have all called to the School myself and in my opinion they 184 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
4.209
4.210
4.212
children are not near as healthy or as well fed looking ... They look cold and miserable looking. The lady who was cook there says some of the food given to the children [was] not fit for dogs and that she says was one of the reasons for leaving. Now I am a particular friend of the Bros in Greenmount and has no wish to do any injury to them and their good work; which is at times difficult but I consider I owe a duty towards these children owing to the position I hold and as a representative of the Dept. of Education. I do hope this matter will be treated in confidence as I do not wish it to be known that it was I brought this matter to notice. 4.213 Dr McCabe was unable to investigate the matter immediately as she was on sick leave from the Department. However, she did visit the office and was asked by a Department official for her view on the allegations contained in the Councillors letter. He made the following note: Dr McCabe said that she considered, from her experience, that Greenmount was a very well conducted Industrial School. On all occasions on which she visited the school, the food for the children was of a very good quality, and she could find no evidence to justify the present complaint with regard to the care taken of the children from the point of view of their personal cleanliness. Her visits were frequently without previous notification, so that it could not be suggested, in her opinion, that conditions as she found them were designed specially because of her visit. 4.214 Dr McCabe visited Greenmount in September 1949 to investigate the complaints made. She interviewed the Garda who had made the complaint, and also the cook who had worked in Greenmount and was now employed in the Garda station. She was not impressed by the account given by the cook, who alleged that the boys were taken out into the courtyard and were stripped and beaten with leashes that they were ill-fed and never got sugar or tea, and that the little boys who helped her in her kitchen ... were always ravenous for food. She then visited the School and had each boy undressed. She could not see any signs of injury or ill-treatment. She stated that she was present when several meals were served to the boys and that they were always ample and inviting. Sugar was put into the boilers rather than into bowls on the table, as was the practice in many schools, to avoid waste. She observed that coffee was served to the boys at one meal, and requested that tea be served instead. The Resident Manager explained that this practice had started during the Emergency, when tea was in poor supply, and agreed that it would desist. She found all areas of the School well kept and clean. She also found that all of the boys had boots which were in good condition, and that repairs were carried out when necessary. She did discover that four boys were verminous and, on enquiring, she was told that these boys had been home for holidays and that the School had difficulty cleaning them up on their return. She suggested plentiful use of DDT and more frequent bathing. She surmised that the woman who had complained to the Garda about the School bore a grudge because she was summarily dismissed after a short time working there: most of her evidence was conjecture as she had never been in the boys refectory and I do not think anyone would believe her story about the public beatings in the court yard. She noted that the Medical Officer and nurse always spoke highly of the School, and was satisfied that, if any unkindness was displayed towards the children, they would have informed her in the best interests of the children. In conclusion, she found that the allegations made were without foundation and that the school continues to be as well run as usual. The Department accepted these conclusions and that was the end of the matter. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 185
4.215
4.216
4.217
4.218
Dr McCabe appears to have disregarded the eyewitness accounts of neglect at Greenmount. She seems to have taken a dislike to the lay person who made some of the allegations, and dismissed all of the complaints on that basis. Garda Bracken37 stated that he had received several complaints from parents regarding food and clothing. He himself had called to the School and was of the opinion that the children were not healthy. He went as far as to describe them as cold and miserable looking. The parent who complained to the local Councillor was so troubled by the condition in which she found her son that she refused to go to the sanatorium for vital treatment for TB until her son was removed from the Institution. The Councillor felt compelled to write to the Department, setting out his concerns regarding conditions in Greenmount, as his office had received numerous complaints of neglect. Dr McCabe made no mention of these complaints in her report. She also dismissed too easily the allegation that boys were stripped and beaten in the courtyard. Dr McCabe had been critical of food and clothing in Greenmount in the mid-1940s. It was not until 1947 that she noted that food and diet had improved. She did not make another official Inspection until 1951, but that report has not survived. Her next report was in 1953, and she had a number of suggestions to make regarding the running of Greenmount.
4.219
Evidence on conditions from the Presentation Brothers annals and records

4.220 The annals of 1955 record that the boys were bought new boots as their ordinary everyday boots made noise like that of an army on parade, new raincoats that should last for at least five years, and good warm jackets instead of jerseys ... for the winter months. The profit from a concert of 50 helped to pay off some of the bill for the overcoats. Dr McCabe had criticised the clothing several times in the 1950s, and an effort was being made to respond to her comments. The Provincial Report to the General Council in 1957 noted that the boys appeared ragged and unkempt. It went on to say: I am convinced that all the uplift which we a religious body should give is not being given. We should be able to do something for them and make something out of them and do more than merely keep them. All my suggestions to this, and in fact to any matter, were turned down by the Superior as Utopian, impractical, and impossible. 4.222 This pessimism about being able to do more for the boys caused Professor Keogh to conclude, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that demoralisation had set in within the community as a consequence of the inquiry. It was, of course, at this time that two Brothers were removed from their posts after a canonical inquiry into alleged sexual abuse of children. The report certainly makes it clear that food, clothing and hygiene often fell below acceptable standards. The quality of care varied according to the quality of the Resident Manager, and internal controls did not seem to exist.
4.221
Department of Education Medical Inspection Reports

4.223 Dr McCabe also reported on medical matters affecting the School. Generally, her reports were very positive. She noted in her report of November 1943 that there were five cases of scabies in the School which required treatment. One boy required treatment for syphilis. The next medical report which warrants comment is from the early 1950s. Dr McCabe made reference to the inadequacy of the boys diet, and made suggestions for improvement to the newly
37
4.224
4.225
186
appointed Resident Manager, Br Domingo. She reiterated these concerns the following year to his successor, Br Carlito, and also suggested that new cooking equipment should be purchased. 4.226 In December 1954, Dr McCabe was asked to investigate an outbreak of head lice at the School, already referred to above. Her comments regarding the nurse had, up to this point, been very complimentary. In this report, she was critical of the inflexible approach taken by the nurse to only attend to sick children, and suggested an increase in her salary to correspond with a widening of her duties. She once again expressed concern at the childrens diet and the antiquated cooking equipment. She also registered her unease at the presence of two boys whose parents were in a TB sanatorium. The boys had tested negative for TB, but she felt that they posed a risk and should not be in the School. They were also very delicate and unfit for industrial training. The Department subsequently wrote to the School, requesting that the boys be transferred to a more suitable institution. The boys underwent further x-rays, and it was revealed that one of the boys was in fact suffering from TB. He was released on supervision certificate to a childrens hospital, and his brother was permitted to stay until his father was in a position to take him home. The following year, the nurse was praised for having much improved and taken a greater interest in the school as a whole. The report of November 1956 is in the same vein, and Dr McCabe noted improvement in the general hygiene of the children who were now very well supervised. She emphasised, once again, the necessity for each boy to have his own toothbrush and to use it regularly. The last two Medical Inspection Reports both focus on the inadequacy of the cooking facilities, which had repercussions for the quality of the boys diet. The Resident Manager, Br Santos,37 was singled out for praise as being kind and attentive to the boys.
4.227
4.228
4.229
4.230
Aftercare
4.231 The annual reports furnished by the School to the Department of Education stated that children released on supervision certificate were supervised by the School by means of visits and correspondence. They also stated that former pupils returned to the School for visits and also corresponded with the Brothers. No details were provided to the Investigation Committee regarding aftercare provided to boys discharged from the School.
Closure of Greenmount
4.232 The first indication that the Presentation Brothers were considering closing Greenmount was noted in Dr McCabes Inspection Report dated November 1952. She stated that the Manager had indicated to her that, once numbers fell below 150, the School would resign the certificate because it would cease to be economically practicable. The following year, numbers did drop to just below 150, and, apart from a slight increase in 1954, numbers remained below 150. In March 1959, the Chief Inspector of Industrial Schools at the Department of Education wrote: Bro. Goyo38 of the General Council of the Presentation Brothers, Mount St. Joseph Cork called in to the office about six weeks ago and told me in strict confidence that his order was considering closing Greenmount Industrial School. He enquired what the procedure should be. I told him that under Section 48 of the Children's Act 1908 the Managers may on giving six months notice in writing to the Minister for Education resign the Certificate.
37 38
4.233
187
He was anxious to know whether the six months interval between the giving of the notice and the evacuating of the school would be insisted on and I informed him that we would do our best to arrange for the transfer of the boys in Greenmount to some other school or schools as quickly as possible. Bro. Goyo rang me on the 17th Feb. and said his Provincial and he with the Res. Manager of Greenmount were anxious to meet me to discuss matters bearing on the closing of the Greenmount School. I met the three of them in the School on the 26th Feb. I pointed out to them that before considering the transfer of Greenmount school boys elsewhere we should contact the Res. Manager of Upton School to ascertain how many boys from Greenmount he would be prepared to accept. The great majority of the Greenmount Boys are from Cork City and County. We (the provincial and Res. Manager and I) arranged to meet [the] Res. Manager of Upton School and we told him in confidence that Greenmount school was to be closed and we asked him how many boys from that school he could accept on transfer into his school. [The Resident Manager of Upton] promised to consider the matter and let us know as soon as possible. He notified us on the 3rd instant that his school could accommodate 105 of the Greenmount boys. I further discussed with the Res. Manager of Greenmount the distribution of the boys and asked him on the 11th instant to furnish lists of the proposed transfer. He has contacted the Resident Managers of Upton, Artane, Tralee & Glin Schools and has recommended the transfer of the boys as follows Upton 98, Artane 9, Tralee 4, Glin 3. The General Council of the Presentation Brothers is very anxious that Greenmount as an Industrial School be closed as from the 31st March, 1959 and the Resident Manager of Upton is anxious to have a decision on the matter as early as possible in order to arrange for the appointment of two extra teachers. Schedules of the proposed transfers are attached for the Minister's signature. 4.234 Written in manuscript at the end of the letter is the note, Greenmount Arrangements will be made for the transfer of the boys on 31/3/59. The six months notice in writing required under the Act was being waived. By contrast, the Department attempted to enforce the six-month rule on Newtownforbes when the Sisters of Mercy withdrew in 1969. On 16th February 1959, the Resident Manager, Br Ernesto,39 wrote to the Chief Inspector: Dear Sir. The General Council of the Presentation Brothers has decided to close Greenmount as an Industrial School. I, accordingly wish to know: (i) If the boys at present in this school can be suitably accommodated in the other Industrial Schools of the country. (ii) If so, when may we hope that the evacuation can be conveniently carried out. While I realize that the statutory period of notice for closing is six months, the General Council is anxious to effect the closing as quickly as possible. I hope to hear from you as early as possible, as we wish to arrange at an early date for the renovation of the building for other purposes. For various reasons, I should like to have this matter treated in strict confidence.
39
4.235
4.236
188
4.237
There is no written explanation of what was meant by the renovation of the building for other purposes, nor was an explanation given as to why there was a need for such haste. Again, the Chief Inspector is exhorted to treat the matter in strict confidence. The Chief Inspector replied, asking for the particulars of the boys to be transferred and asked for the following to be done: (1) The local authorities liable under the Children Acts to be informed. (2) The five boys detained under the Health Act, 1953 to be transferred to Tralee by arrangement with the local authorities. (3) Boys committed but whose period of detention was soon to expire to be released on supervision certificates.
4.238
4.239
He ended with the caution that no action was to be taken without the approval of the Minister for Education. In this otherwise thorough and methodical letter, no mention was made about informing the parents of the boys who were to be moved. On 12th March, the Resident Manager duly provided the data needed. The schools at Upton, Artane, Glin and Tralee had been contacted and had agreed to the transfer of boys to their respective institutions. The letter ended: Regarding the notification of Transfer to be sent to the Local Authorities, can I presume that the transfers will be put into effect on 31st March and mention that date to them?
4.240
4.241 4.242
The local authorities were, in effect, to be presented with a fait accompli. On 23rd March 1959, the Department wrote to the Resident Manager that the Minister had sanctioned the transfer of the boys under detention as follows:
Release term expired Release supervision certificate Transferred to Upton Transferred to Artane Transferred to Tralee Transferred to Glin Total 1 12 98 9 4 3 127
4.243
With one small change (one extra boy was discharged and 97 went to Upton), the transfers took place on the agreed date. On 31st March, the Resident Manager wrote the following letter to the Chief Inspector: I wish to inform you that all the boys have been disposed of to-day as arranged by previous discussion and correspondence with the exception of six boys, victims of influenza, whom we have detained in the school until recovery and three boys who are in hospital. We will arrange for the transport of these boys to their different schools when they are fit to travel. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing sincere thanks on my own behalf and on behalf of the Superior General, for having treated this whole matter of disposing of the boys so expeditiously.
4.244
The matter was not finished here, however. The decision to close the School was initially made without consultation with the Bishop. The Superior General visited the bishop on 16th January 1959 to inform him of the fact that the Brothers intended closing the School and opening a Juniorate for aspiring Brothers. The Bishop sought expert opinion on canon law on the subject, and wrote the following letter to the Superior General: CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 189
Dear Brother Jose, I got your letter of. Jan 29th and, in view of your having told me (a) that you had already made arrangements with the Department about closing down Greenmount as an Industrial School and (b) that my permission was not necessary for your doing this and using the building as an extension to your Juniorate, I took expert opinion in Canon Law. That opinion is that my permission is required by Canon 497. There is question of closing down an Industrial School and opening an additional Juniorate. Can. 497 allows only changes pertaining to the internal management, etc to be made without referring to the Ordinary, whereas arrangements about your Juniorate may be regarded as pertaining to the internum regimen, the change from or concerning the Industrial School cannot be regarded as an internal one. As well there is the possibility that it was precisely in order to have this school there that you got the foundation at Greenmount originally. In the circumstances, therefore, I have to inform you that Canon 497 has to be complied with and I have formally to register a protest at your having made arrangements with public authority to close down this schola or hospitium without first acquainting, much less having the permission of ecclesiastical authority; namely the Ordinarius Bishop of Cork. That I am quite agreeable to such change, when duly arranged, is another matter. 4.245 The Bishop was correct in his surmise that it was precisely in order to have this school there that you got the foundation at Greenmount originally. There was at least an ethical difficulty about taking property given at a peppercorn rent to provide a home for boys untrained, steeped in misery, and with no means of support and to use it for an entirely different purpose. The Superior General replied as follows: In your letter to-day you state that you would like us to put before you the reasons for the proposed change. Those reasons are as follows: 1. Over a period of years, the constant decline in numbers has made the working of the establishment uneconomic, and consequently difficult to cater adequately for the temporal needs of the boys. We believe that if the temporal needs of the boys are not sufficiently catered for, their spiritual and moral well-being will suffer, and the Institution will fail to achieve its purpose. 2. We are satisfied that the public good and the good of the boys will not suffer as a result of the closing of the school. We understand that there is ample accommodation in other Industrial Schools in Munster for all the boys who are now in Greenmount. Consequently we feel that the need for Greenmount as an Industrial School no longer exists. 3. Because of the difficulty of providing suitably trained Brothers to staff such an Institution Greenmount being the only school of its kind which we have in Ireland. 4. If we cannot use Greenmount as an extra Juniorate, we must build now, and at short notice, an extension to Douglas Juniorate, or provide alternative accommodation. These are the reasons, my Lord, which we believe justify us in applying to you now for the necessary permission to effect the proposed change. I am sorry that this has been the cause of so much worry and trouble to you. With dutiful respects [etc]. 4.246 On 11th February, the Bishop replied that, as the boys had suitable alternative accommodation, and as the Presentation Brothers were going to give up their holding in Passage parish, he was going to agree to the plan. 190 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
4.247
The fourth reason was the only pressing one. The other three had been problems over the preceding years, and they did not need to be addressed with such urgency. An unexpected question arose soon after the closure of the School, when the Minister for Education, Mr Jack Lynch, was asked if there was any proposal to re-form the band of Greenmount in any other local institute in the Cork area. In the notes prepared for the Ministers reply, to be given on 9th April 1959, the following statement was made: In arranging for the dispersal of the boys every care was taken to ensure that the transfers would cause the least possible inconvenience to the boys parents or guardians.
4.248
4.249
However, the document went on to add: The boys parents/guardians were not advised of the intention to close Greenmount until the day the boys travelled to their new schools. This information was deliberately withheld for reasons of school discipline and lest it would create an unsettling effect in the minds of the boys. Thirty two boys were allowed home on Easter Sunday and had they known of the proposed arrangements it is quite likely many of them would not have returned to school. Should a supplementary question be asked, the Minister might say that: It is considered that earlier notification to the parents might result in unsettling or upsetting the boys concerned in advance of their transfer. Of the 29 boys in the school from the Dublin area Artane were prepared to receive only those committed for non-indictable offences, i.e. a total of 9 boys. The remaining 20 boys would have been discontented had they known beforehand that they were being sent to Upton and not to Artane.
4.250
The Dail debate for 9th April records that Mr Stephen Barrett T.D. first asked the Minister about the band, and then asked if the Minister would state the circumstances under which it became necessary to close down Greenmount ... details of the average number of boys in the institute for each of the three years prior to the close down, and the number on 31st March, 1959; and details of the manner in which the boys were dispersed upon the closing down and the manner in which Cork City and County will be catered for in this respect in future. The Minister gave his replies and indicated he had no choice in the matter of the closure. He said, The conductors of this institution desired to resign the Certificate under which it was recognised as an Industrial School and I had no option but to accede to their request. He did not state that the closure could have been delayed legally for six months. Mr Barrett then asked: Is the Minister aware that these children were dispersed without any prior discussion with their parents and that, in fact, the parents were not aware that the children had been removed from the industrial school to other industrial schools until after the dispersal had taken place?
4.251
4.252
4.253
The Ministers reply was: I understand that is the situation but that the conductors of the school did so for what they considered good and sufficient reason and that there was no intention whatever to ignore parental rights or to disregard their interests. They did so in the best interests of the management and conduct of the school. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 191
4.254
Mr Barrett then asked: Is the Minister aware that, in fact, the interests of the parents were ignored and that the promoters of this industrial school knew that they were ignoring the rights of the parents and, without any prior discussion or notice to them, removed the children and does he approve of that?
4.255
Mr J Lynch replied: I think it ought to be made clear that they acted strictly within their rights and within the terms of the Children Act, 1908, which governs the conduct of industrial schools.
4.256
Mr Barrett pressed the matter further. He asked: Does the Minister agree that it is a very bad precedent in such matters and would he indicate that if any further industrial schools are being dispersed this precedent should not be followed?
4.257
An Ceann Comhairle protested, That seems to be a separate matter, but Mr Lynch went on to reply, ignoring his Departments brief. He said, It is very unlikely to arise again, I am sure. This assurance from the Minister, that the way in which Greenmount closed was a precedent that would not be repeated, was as close as he came to expressing disapproval of the way the closure was handled.
Conclusions
4.258
The secrecy surrounding the closure of Greenmount meant that the rights of the parents, and the emotional needs of the boys, were both ignored. It was carried out in a way that suited the best interests of the management and conduct of the school without any regard for the right of parents to know where their children were being taken, or concern for the boys, who were suddenly transferred without any time to prepare themselves for the move. Parents were clearly upset, because they asked their TD to raise the matter in the Dail. The documents concerning the closure show no compassion or concern for the boys emotions. The boys were kept in ignorance of the fact they were going to be moved from an institution they had lived in for months and, in many cases, years. To many, it was their home. Only at the last moment were they told where they were going to be taken. To many, this news must have been a shock causing much distress.
On the changing nature of the boys in Greenmount

4.259 The letter to the Bishop of Cork from the Superior General had cited the difficulty of providing suitably trained Brothers to staff such an Institution as one of the four reasons for closing. During Phase III, Br Minehane expanded on this problem. He explained that, in the 1950s, Boys were assigned to Greenmount from the Dublin area and that created further problems. The problems were related to discipline. The Dublin boys were more challenging of authority. They were hardened and street-wise. Br Minehane said, we were dealing with a new and more difficult client, and ... training and expertise was required. While the numbers of Brothers dealing with the pupils in Greenmount was about the same all the time, the management and care of the new kind of boy required an expertise and training that was not available to the Presentation Brothers. Professor Keogh concluded his report for the Presentation Brothers as follows: This was the central point made in the report of the 19346 commission of inquiry children in industrial schools were not children apart; however, they were still being 192 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
4.260
criminalised in the public mind without any justification ... Industrial school children ought, accordingly, to have been treated and cherished as children and as citizens of the Irish state with rights under the constitution. But it seems that in Ireland in the 1930s, 40s and 50s the old idea of treating such children as a class apart had not yet ceased to be part of the mind-set of a society that was all-too-willing to seek an answer for complex social problems behind the closed doors of state-funded under-resourced institutions. It was tidier that way.
General conclusions
4.261 1. A harsh regime with excessive corporal punishment was implemented by one Resident Manager, who continued to serve as a senior Brother after his period of office, and would accordingly have influenced the policy of the School, but there was evidence of a softening of the regime in subsequent years. No formal record was kept, as required by the regulations. 2. The Congregation and the Department of Education failed to supervise properly and were insufficiently objective. They placed too much reliance on the Resident Manager for information on how the boys were cared for and did not have independent investigation. Evidence of mistreatment was ignored. 3. The 1955 investigations into sexual abuse revealed grave failures on the part of the Congregation and the Diocese, and let two persons who were believed to be guilty of sexual abuse to continue careers dealing with children. 4. The interests of the Congregation were prioritised in the manner in which Greenmount was closed, and the lack of information to the parents and the boys themselves, by both the Congregation and the Department of Education, showed an indifference to the people most affected by the closure.
193
194
Chapter 5
Our Lady of Good Counsel, Lota, Glanmire, County Cork (Lota), 19391999
Introduction
5.01 Our Lady of Good Counsel, Lota was founded in 1938 as a school catering for children with learning disabilities. It continues to be managed by the Brothers of Charity. Among its other services, the Congregation also operates a similar facility located at Holy Family School Woodlands, Renmore, County Galway. There have been six separate investigations by An Garda Sochana into allegations of sexual abuse of the residents by members of staff of Lota. Two Brothers of the Congregation were convicted of crimes of sexual abuse of children resident in Lota in the period 1952 to 1984. In 2002, evidence was taken from three complainant witnesses and three respondents, two of whom had been convicted of sexual abuse offences and a third Brother of Charity respondent who admitted a single incident of sexual abuse while working in Lota. This chapter is based on evidence from those hearings and an analysis of discovered documents.
5.02
5.03
5.04
History
5.05 The Congregation of the Brothers of Charity was founded in Ghent, Belgium on 28th December 1807 by Canon Joseph Peter Triest, with the purpose of taking care of elderly men at the Byloke Hospital in that city. After three years of setbacks, the Novitiate started in 1810, and the first Brothers of Charity took their vows on 26th November 1811. Within a decade, Canon Triest and his Brothers had set up several charitable services that they would develop worldwide. The special aim of this Congregation was the sanctification of its members in the religious state by the exercise of works of charity, which, in the spirit of its founder, embraced every phase of moral and physical suffering and want. They tended the sick, sheltered the poor, cared for the aged, provided for those with learning disability, and raised orphan children. They opened their first service in Ireland in 1883 to provide for mental health needs. In the beginning of 1938, the Chief Inspector of Mental Hospitals announced his retirement, and before he left office he expressed his wish that the Brothers of Charity would open a second centre in Ireland for the treatment of educationally disabled juveniles with special educational needs. The Central Administration of the Brothers of Charity, who were already operating a psychiatric hospital in Belmont Park, Waterford, were initially reluctant to become involved because they were already overburdened with debt through subsidising a number of their houses CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 195
5.06
in Ireland and the UK. Pressure was brought to bear on the authorities, who eventually agreed to give permission to start the work, provided the cost was borne by the Province in Ireland. 5.07 It was decided to base the centre in the diocese of Cork, and, after initial reluctance, the Bishop of Cork agreed to allow the Brothers to enter the Diocese. Suitable premises in Glanmire were identified, and the Brothers formally took possession of the buildings on 19th November 1938. It was officially opened in December 1938 and the first Superior was installed. He named the foundation House of Our Lady of Good Counsel. The houses needed a considerable amount of work, and it was not until March 1939 that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health approved the Institution. The first patient was admitted on 11th April 1939 and, by the end of the year, they had 18 patients in residence. The services of the Congregation of the Brothers of Charity for people with learning disability and their families have grown steadily over the years, and today the Congregation is the largest provider of services for people with learning disability in Ireland. The motto of the Brothers of Charity is Deus caritas est, God is Love. Their mission is caring for people whose human dignity is threatened through disability, age, poverty etc.
5.08
5.09
The vows taken by the Brothers

5.10 5.11 When a Brother of Charity is professed, he takes the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. In a document published in 1948 entitled Practices and Customs, the Congregation set out the aims, objects and works of the Congregation. In the section Education of Youth, it set out the Constitution, and then detailed what was expected of the Brothers involved in the education of children. It is clear that the danger of Brothers becoming inappropriately involved with their pupils was present in the minds of the authorities: 38. Though we must love our pupils we must not become too attached to them. We must never let our affection degenerate into particular friendship for one or more children; never must we allow ourselves to be led into dangerous intimacies. The moment such preferences becomes apparent to the other children they will at once feel slighted and neglected. It is certainly permissible to give praise where praise is due, but external marks of tenderness are unbecoming in a religious. He ought always to remember the gravity and modesty which befit his state and never allow a child to touch him familiarly or caress him.
5.12
In 1957, the 1922 Constitution of the Brothers of Charity was revised, following the agreement of the General Chapter. Chapter 20 deals with the vow of chastity: 215. By their vow of chastity the Brothers forego marriage and every satisfaction contrary to the virtue of chastity. 216. With the help of Gods grace, they shall be most careful in preserving unsullied the beautiful virtue of chastity. 217. To that end, far from admitting in their conduct anything likely to bring suspicion upon themselves in this matter, they shall carefully guard against harbouring in their minds any thoughts contrary to this eminent virtue. 218. They shall observe sobriety in eating and drinking, for intemperance leads to sensuality. 219. Everywhere, but principally in going through the streets, they must prudently guard their eyes, knowing that it is often through these windows, that the enemy carries death into the soul. 196 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
220. Let them earnestly study to avoid in their manner all forwardness and levity, observing in their whole conduct the rules of christian modesty, since, according to the holy Fathers, modesty is the guardian of purity. 221. Therefore, all familiarity, all particular friendship between Brothers, novices or postulants, is strictly forbidden. For the same reason, they must never jostle, wrestle, indulge in horse-play or in any action whatsoever likely to take away or lessen the mutual respect due to each other, for the proverb says: If you would be respected, begin by respecting yourself. 222. A great circumspection and discretion should be observed in their conversation, be it at recreation or elsewhere, to avoid anything that might cause disedification. 223. This circumspection, indispensable among the Brothers, is a thousand times more so when they are with strangers or with persons confided to their care, such as old men, sick and insane persons, and principally children. He who should be unfaithful to this regulation and not fear to be the subject of scandal, is unworthy of the religious garb. 224. For this reason, it is strictly forbidden to play with a child in too free or familiar a manner, to be alone with a single child in a lonely place or in a room with closed doors, even with the view of giving him instruction, reprimand, punishment etc. 225. The Brothers, inspired by a wholesome fear, will ever be on their guard against the attractiveness of children, their cajolery and flattery, being fully persuaded that in this matter, the best children are the most dangerous. 226. They shall very carefully avoid giving the impression of having among their pupils what are called pets or spoiled children. 227. The Brothers are strictly forbidden to inflict corporal punishment on any of their subordinates, whether children or others, without the express permission of the Superior 228. As regards the bodily care or medical treatment which they may be obliged to administer to children or other persons under their care, the Brothers shall do nothing before consulting their Superior, who will judge whether such attentions or treatment had not better be entrusted to the physician or surgeon. 5.13 In the material discovered to the Investigation Committee are documents entitled Regular Visitation in the houses of St Josephs Province. The impression is given that an annual visitation was carried out in Lota. However, the paucity of records has made it impossible to establish whether in fact such visitations occurred annually. There are very few documents relating to management of the School and the living conditions within it. What records are available focus on matters of finance, building development and the like. A fuller discussion of these Visitation Reports is given below.
The Lota campus

5.14 In the early years, there was a mixture of children and adults residing in Lota and, although there was a school, it was not officially recognised by the Department of Education. Some qualified teachers were recruited in the early 1950s in order to obtain recognition from the Department, and this was granted in 1955. Between 1951 and 1953, there was a rapid expansion in numbers, and new buildings, considered to be innovative at that time, were constructed. They comprised three large, detached, singlestorey buildings known as pavilions. They were quite a distance apart and separate from the main building. They each housed approximately 60 boys. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 197
5.15
5.16
The boys slept in dormitories, and there were two rooms at each end where the Brothers slept. Although there was accommodation for four Brothers in the pavilion known as Sancta Maria, the evidence suggested that there were times when not all of the four rooms were occupied. The school classrooms were scattered between the main building, reconstructed farmyard buildings and portakabins. The children were allocated to these buildings by both age and degree of learning disability. One pavilion was used for boys with more severe disability. The other two pavilions were used for children between approximately 10 and 14, and 14 to 18 years of age, with mild learning disability. Br Dieter1 explained the system as it operated in the late 1950s: I should give you the names of the three pavilions. One was Sancta Maria for elevenyear-olds plus who were mildly handicapped, and unfortunately among those there were some normal boys, as well, as discovered as time went on. Then in St Patricks, the older age group of those boys, 14 to 16-year-olds, were catered for, and then the younger children who were coming in at that time, as well, they were four-year-olds. The Blessed Martin pavilion, which was designated for the very severely handicapped children, it was decided then to divide that up into two sections, and one section was used for the mildly handicapped boys that were coming in, they were four-year-olds plus.
5.17
5.18
5.19
There were two dormitories at either end of these pavilions, each with 30 beds. The residential part of the building was completely separate from the classrooms. The boys went to school in the original main building, where the younger children in Lota also resided. After the Kennedy Report recommended that large institutions should be split up into group homes, these large pavilions became obsolete, but it was not until 1985 that the first of these pavilions was demolished, and 30 boys were moved into three bungalows, housing 10 boys in each. By 1988, all the boys were housed in bungalows in a more family-style setting. The Investigation Committee received the following photograph and plan of Lota:
5.20
5.21
5.22
Source: Brothers of Charity

1
198
Source: Brothers of Charity
The children in Lota

5.23 In theory, all the children in Lota had special educational needs. Unlike the industrial school system, which segregated the children according to their ages, with separate classes provided for younger children, the age profile of children in Lota was wide ranging and was based on different criteria. They were segregated according to their level of learning disability. Children could be sent to the School at a very early age, some from the age of two years. A high percentage of the complainants were orphans who had been transferred from other institutions. From 1956 to the early 1970s, there was an average of 240 boys in the School and they were cared for by 16 Brothers, who worked an 18-hour day. Some of the older residents helped with the younger ones, but this practice became less common as work became available for them outside the Institution. During the course of his evidence, Br Dieter stated that some boys had been sent to Lota, even though they did not have special needs. He said: One was the Sancta Maria for eleven year old boys who were mildly handicapped, and unfortunately among those there were some normal boys, as well, as discovered as time went on. 5.27 The Investigation Committee asked the Brothers of Charity to clarify Br Dieters statement, and further requested if the Brothers of Charity had assessed the boys to ascertain this fact. The legal representatives on behalf of the Brothers of Charity wrote the following: CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 199
5.24
5.25
5.26
5.28
Most of the children at Lota suffered from a learning disability. Our client believes that Brother Dieters reference to some boys being normal was intended as a reference to the fact that a small number of the boys at Lota came from different circumstances. For example, whilst our client believes that it could not occur now, some boys were sent to Lota because there was no other institution better suited to their needs available to them. Other boys were there because they were born outside of marriage, some boys were orphans, while others were placed for other social reasons such as their family not being able to cope. 5.29 It was a school designed to cater for boys with mild to severe learning disability, yet boys without a learning disability were sent there and kept in the School for years. Even when it became known to staff in the School that these boys did not have a learning problem, no provision was made for them to be educated at a level appropriate to their needs. Not surprisingly, they resented their placement and retention in Lota, and their lives were blighted by the inadequate education they received. One witness told the Investigation Committee that he believed he was sent to Lota for no other reason than that he had been truanting from school. He stated As I say, I believe I am quite intelligent. I can pick up things, 99% of things. If I learn about something I will know about it forever. I am very interested in science for instance. I have done a lot of study into science, into space travel and stuff like that. I am very interested in a lot of that. I have done a lot of study into that and I am interested in that but I do not think I had the education good enough to have been able to follow it up, which I would have loved to do. 5.31 When asked if he felt that he was in any way educationally handicapped, he replied No. He was asked if he felt he was inappropriately placed in Lota, and he replied: Maybe it was my own imagination but I felt that I was not mentally handicapped. That if I was given an opportunity, I could learn properly ... I was able to pick things up a lot quicker. When something was told to me I could understand it much easier than some people you know. I do not know why I could do it but that is the way it was with me.
5.30
Complaints regarding Lota

5.32 There were 12 complainants in respect of Lota. Three of these complainants were heard by the Commission in 2002.
The duty of care

5.33 A high duty of care is owed to children who are less able to look after themselves, by reason of physical or mental incapacity. The children in Lota fell into this vulnerable category. Children with learning disabilities rely heavily on adults to help them cope with everyday life. Whether raised at home or in institutions, they are more vulnerable because they are less exposed to the normal risks of life, and their lack of experience can leave them unable to assess risks in general. In addition, children wiith learning disabilities may be less aware of social rules that govern everyday behaviour. They can be led into situations posing dangers that would have been avoided by children who had had the opportunity and ability to learn how to assess risks realistically. Learning disabled children, particularly those raised in institutions, often fail to see any risk at all. They may be unaware of what is socially and morally unacceptable, and as a result they are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. 200 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
5.34
5.35
5.36
If children with a learning disability are harmed or abused, their disability and inexperience leaves them even more uncertain than other children as to what to do about it. If the person who is there to protect them is also the person perpetrating the abuse, then their confusion is complete. Bearing these issues in mind, the Investigation Committee had to do more than assess whether abuse occurred in Lota. It had to assess whether the management structures and care arrangements were such that they could provide the additional level of care owed to the vulnerable population entrusted to the Brothers of Charity.
5.37
The dearth of documentary evidence

The supervisory bodies 5.38 Two Government Departments, The Department of Health and the Department of Education, were responsible for supervising services in Lota. The Department of Education inspected the education provided in Lota. They officially recognised the National School in Lota in 1955. The Department of Health also inspected the premises, but only in relation to direct funding of capital development projects. The Investigation Committee asked the Department of Health about their inspection regime for institutions for persons with intellectual disabilities between the period 1939 and 1990, and they replied: From enquiries made both within the Department and the H.S.E2 (S.H.B3. area as Lota is based there) this division is not aware of any inspections having being carried out by the Department or then Health Board staff on institutions for persons with intellectual difficulties between the period 1939 and 1990. 5.40 The Department was also asked specifically if it had carried out any inspections in Our Lady of Good Counsel, Lota during the period 1939 to 1990. The Department replied: From enquiries made both within the Department and the H.S.E (S.H.B. area) this division is not aware of any inspections having being carried out by Department in Our Lady of Good Counsel during this period. 5.41 The Department of Health stated that the only inspections carried out and on behalf of The Department of Health and Children during the period 1939 to 1990 were in respect of children in Care in Foster Homes. Lota did not come within the scope of the Inspector for Reformatories and Industrial Schools either. Dr Anna McCabe, who inspected these schools, did not visit Lota, and no Department of Education inspection of the residential facilities took place either. The industrial schools were inspected and the Medical Inspectors reports left contemporary evidence about diet, and living conditions. No such documentation exists for Lota. Neither Government Department saw itself as responsible for overseeing the conditions and quality of care in the School. The witnesses who appeared before the Committee said very little about the diet and clothing of the residents, as their chief concern was to relate what had been done to them. With no external supervision, the management of the Brothers of Charity alone assessed the quality of the care they provided and the suitability of the staff entrusted with the care of children with learning disability.
2 3
5.39
5.42
5.43
5.44
Health Service Executive. Southern Health Board.
201
Visitation Reports 5.45 The Investigation Committee received from the Brothers of Charity a limited number of Visitation Reports. They were written by Brothers delegated by the Congregation to conduct Visitations of the School. The Brothers of Charity conducted two kinds of Visitation. One was a general inspection of St. Josephs Province, with the Visitor reporting on every school within it. The second kind was a specific Visitation of Lota, which usually lasted a number of days. It reviewed how the School was being run and the extent to which the Congregations Rules were being observed. The Visitation Reports reveal certain preoccupations. The first concern was ensuring that the Rules of the Brothers of Charity were being observed by the Community. For example, the 1955 Report noted: There are no serious abuses to chronicle, but in closing the Visitation I drew attention of the Brothers to the following points: 1) Morning Rising and spiritual exercises in general; 2) Fraternal Charity; 3) Spirit of Poverty; 4) Care of the Patients. I also urged them to pray earnestly for good vocations and for the beatification for our holy Founder. 5.48 The Visitation Report of 1961 made various observations regarding the School. The Visitor remarked that, in relation to chastity, There appears to be no cause for complaint; the Brothers are attentive and careful in their dealings with the children and circumspect when they come in contact with outsiders. He also noted that SPIRITUAL EXERCISES. These are well and regularly attended. There is a weakness at the midday exercises when a number of Brothers come late. He was also critical of the way the Brothers said their prayers. He wrote, In respect of the Office, it is said somewhat on the fast side and too loudly the superior is one of the worst offenders. The second preoccupation was the School finances. The Visitor in 1961 reviewed the financial situation of the School and found it in a healthy state and contributing its quota to the Province. At the conclusion of his Visitation, the Visitor wrote: 1. As religious, we must give to God at least what we vowed the generous soul seeks ways and means of giving more. Be generous with God. 2. The morning rising needs attention it is the first sacrifice of the day, Generosity towards God. 3. It is unbecoming and irreverent for Brothers to constantly come late to H. Mass. 4. Pray daily for one another, the works of your house, the Province, the Congregation especially for vocations. 5.50 This Visitors report does not indicate that at any stage he spoke to any of the resident boys in the School, or to any Brothers in relation to the boys in the School. His priority was to observe the religious life of the community. The Report of the Regular Visitation in 1975 is a typical example. It was a very brief, one-page report and listed each of the Brothers present in the Community, noting the position the Brother held in the School and his religious qualities, as well as an assessment of his contentment with religious life. The Visitor makes no reference to the boys in his report. In brief, there is no contemporary comment on the condition of the boys and the premises. Even if everything was satisfactory, some comment to that effect should have been made. The existing records do not tell us whether all the conditions that were needed to ensure that a quality service 202 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
5.46
5.47
5.49
5.51
5.52
was being provided to the children in the Institution were in fact present. Indeed, there is no evidence that such matters were ever the concern of the Visitor.
Physical abuse
5.53 For the most part, it would seem that the children in Lota did not need to be controlled by a regime of frequent corporal punishment. From the limited evidence available to the Committee it would appear that they were seldom, if ever, challenging or confrontational. One witness, Frank,4 told the Committee: The only form of punishment I did receive during these years was being slapped with a ruler during school hours. This type of punishment was normal practice ... 5.55 However, Br John OShea, who is the Regional Leader of the Brothers of Charity in Ireland and Britain, talked of the authoritarian atmosphere prevalent in schools at the time, and went on to explain what he meant. He said: In a general sense, and I will go back to my own school days or whatever, that there was a very different perception of people in authority. I suppose we had all kinds of sayings like "children were to be seen and not heard", and the sense of maybe rights of children would in some way not be seen as being equal to the rights of adults. Maybe that is not correct, but in a general sense that children didn't have the same standing. 5.56 One respondent witness, Br Guthrie,5 who said he was known as a strict teacher, said that he did not need corporal punishment. He regretted the only time he did strike a boy. He told the Committee: during the 32 years I was there I struck one boy on the face with my open hand, once, and I have always regretted it. That was in 1983. I remember that. I felt like falling on my back when I had done it. I was cross about some remark he had made or something, and there were no beatings. I had no weapon for beating like has been described, whips or sticks or rulers or anything like that. 5.57 His size and his formal appearance in his cassock were enough to instil fear and obedience. He explained: I presume that, first of all, as you say, it was the size and then my position in regard to them. They had to come and go and stand up and sit down and everything like that when I told them. 5.58 He had no difficulty getting the children to respond to his every command. Because of their vulnerability, and their dependence on adults to help them cope with everyday life, they were powerless to resist authority. In addition, many of these boys, because of their disability, were fragile and easily frightened. One witness, Graham,6 described the fear he felt at just the threat of violence: Br Helmut7 he had a stick on the other side of him and he picked up the stick and he shaked it at me, so I sensed there was physical abuse and I was completely I was dumbfounded because these guys had the upper hand ... they had the same aim and the same approach towards me in that their aim was to frighten you, terrify you, get you to
4 5 6 7
5.54
5.59
This This This This
is is is is
a a a a
203
be submissive to them, let them do what they want with you, which I wasn't able to escape from their hands. 5.60 He also recounted a punishment he received because a Brother believed he had attacked a female teacher. In fact, he had become curious about a bun upon her head. He had never seen anyone with her hair tied back in a bun and had approached her to explore the nature of the object. When contact was made, the Brother maintained he was attacking the teacher, and subjected him to a cold shower for a whole half hour. He went on: I was in the shower for between 20 minutes and a half an hour and by the time he asked me to get out of it I was freezing cold. He asked me to get up to bed, up to my bed and I got up to my bed and I was there for the rest of the day and while I was up in bed I was freezing. I was very very cold and I was not really in any humour for anything or even food and I think the same Brother came up and asked did I want anything and I said, no. I just waited until the next morning to get some food in me while I was a good bit of the day without food. 5.61 The evidence heard in respect of this Institution focused mainly on sexual abuse, and Br OShea was not questioned in detail about the Congregations policy with regard to corporal punishment. It is clear from his evidence that the authoritarian atmosphere in Lota was sufficient to prevent children from speaking up about sexual abuse perpetrated by staff. It would also appear from Br OSheas evidence, and from the evidence of witnesses, that corporal punishment was an accepted method of ensuring obedience and control. It would not be credible for a Brother to carry a stick about with him if he never used it. The Committee did not hear evidence of excessive corporal punishment, except what is outlined above, and there are no records of allegations or investigations into physical abuse of children in Lota.
5.62
Sexual abuse
5.63 The three witnesses gave evidence about the sexual abuse they alleged occurred while they were in Lota. Conall8 entered Lota at the age of about eight, in the late 1950s. He told the Committee he was sexually abused by two different Brothers. One Brother abused him when he was younger and, when he stopped, the other Brother seemed to take over. When he first arrived in Lota, he was pleased to have been removed from his National School, where the fact that he wrote with his left hand had led to his being frequently punished and made to stand against a wall for hours. He began playing truant and was sent to Lota. He said, I think I felt relief maybe at the beginning, maybe somebody was taking care of me at long last. He recalled many good times, such as the cycling trips organised by Br Guthrie, and the football and gymnastics. Br Guthrie, the first Brother to sexually abuse him, was, he said, nice to me at the beginning. Then, he said, It changed one day ... I cannot remember dates or anything so you will have to forgive me there. He could not recall the first time, but incidents began to follow a predictable pattern. He described the scene: There was a room between there was a place where you could wash yourself, shave, wash basins and there was a room there was actually doors and a kind of a little small corridor between the two and he took me in there.
8
5.64
5.65
5.66
204
5.67 5.68
The activity that took place was mutual masturbation. This activity then took place regularly over the next three years or so in various parts of the premises where there were secluded nooks. He said that Br Guthrie never tried to do more than these acts of masturbation. When this evidence was put to him, Br Guthrie agreed that the witness had described the types of activity he had perpetrated over his 32 years in Lota. It was always, he said, To do with the hands. He had various hiding places from which there was always an alternative means of escape. There had to be a hiding place, he said, the danger of discovery was ever present. He explained, you cannot stay too long in the one place. Somebody could come in or pass by or open the door or whatever'. His hiding places were chosen with every eventuality entering into his calculation. He would not choose the cellar, he said, because: there was no way out except the way you went in. I think finding a suitable place is finding a way out rather than the way you came in, in case somebody comes along. The secretiveness was part of my operation, that we mustn't be seen or found out or caught or whatever the word is. I wouldn't pick out a dead end.
5.69
5.70
5.71
He also admitted that, in the dormitory he was in charge of, he would visit beds without removing the child from the bed, that was at night time. He added, I cannot deny that I did these things to boys. He also spoke about the kind of boy who attracted him. He preferred boys aged 11 to 13 or 14. He was asked if older children attracted him, and he replied: I do not know. Sometimes it could go on for years, you know occasional and now and again there was a sixteen year old but I probably done something to him 2 or 3 years previously. I would not pick out a 16 year old or a 17 year old, not knowing whether they would accept my advances or what. It never occurred to me. I would say my preferred range was 11 to 13 or 14 and it would also have been those that were fairly bright in their eyes and their speech and that kind of thing.
5.72 5.73
5.74
Conall then said that, towards the end of the three years, there was a brief period when both Br Guthrie and Br Dieter were abusing him. He said, At night time I used to be taken into Br Dieters room and sometimes during the day I would be with Br Guthrie as well. He described the first night that Br Dieter sexually abused him: the dormitory I was in was Br Dieters dormitory, room. There was some rooms There was two dormitories upstairs and there was one I know that did not have a room onto it. That was in the main house now. My bed, there was actually three rows of beds in this dormitory. I remember the first night he came to my bed. As I say, I had been sexually abused by Br Guthrie but I thought maybe the same thing was going to happen here but it was much different altogether. I had oral sex ...
5.75
5.76
He then went into more detail: I was taken from my bedroom to his room and we were more or less naked ... we did not wear pyjamas. We just wore ... Night shirt ... My shirt was off ... it was taken off me ... it was more or less oral sex that night ... It was not just quick bang and all it is over. It seemed to last a long time. There was a lot of foreplay, if I put it that way, before it got to that point. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 205
5.77 5.78
After that night, the sexual abuse became regular until Br Dieter left Lota. When asked what he had to say about the allegations made by this witness, Br Dieter replied: I pleaded guilty except that I have to honestly say that I do not remember Conall and it was because Conall was so insistent that I did abuse him, I then pleaded guilty because I felt, well then, I must have done since Conall was so consistent with his accusations.
5.79
The consistency he mentioned was examined in detail during the hearing. The statement made to the Garda Sochana was read out and tested for discrepancies: I remember the first night Br Dieter came to me. I can take you back to the bed I slept in. I was asleep in bed, he woke me and took me into his room which was a nice distance away. He took me into the bedroom, locked the door and stripped me naked. I was completely naked. He then took all his clothes off. I was now terrified ...
5.80
The Garda statement went on to explicitly describe acts of gross sexual assault on the boy. It concluded: He washed me and put me back into bed and told me not to say anything. The warning was stronger than that but I can't remember the exact words. This abuse continued on for a number of years and it was always the exact same. He would come to my bed, bring me to his room and play with me like a doll for 2 or 3 hours.
5.81
The witness underwent rigorous cross-examination but held firm. He said, What I have said is what I have said. I cannot expand on it or detract from it in any way. A second witness, Graham, also described the sexual abuse perpetrated on him by Br Dieter. He described the first time: I was subjected to his oral sex. I was subjected to it ... It happened in his room off one of the dormitories ... Br Dieter asked me to he said come up, come up to my room and he also said if anybody sees you, tell them that you are cleaning my room out. So I went up the stairs and nobody saw me going up, and I went into Br Dieter's room and he said if anybody sees you going up and they ask you where you are going, tell them you are going to clean Br Dieter's room for him. Obviously, it wasn't really to clean his room. I was a very very sad, timid, young boy and I didn't really have anyone to go to or to say that I have experienced this oral sex or evil that I would call it ... When Br Dieter called me up and he said after the oral sex, he said don't say anything about this. Then a few seconds went and he said to me if you say anything about this, you are for it. I was really caught in two corners. I had nowhere to run. I had no mother and father to come and rescue me.
5.82
5.83
He was about seven years old when this incident happened. It continued until he was about 10. He said: ... between the age of seven and ten that I was subjected to abuse, oral sex abuse. I was subjected to it and as a young boy, sure, I had no choice of either yes or no ... It was very very frequent. There wasn't a week that it didn't happen. But I do remember Br Dieter coming down the stairs, and I was doing a rug and I was content and happy in doing it, but he called me up to his room and the sad thing is that he got the upper hand over a young, innocent boy.
5.84
He recalled another incident when Br Dieter took him under his cassock when they were out for a walk: 206 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
Yes, that's right. He brought all of us, all of the boys up for a walk and we were a good bit up the laneway away from the building and that we were on our way our walk led us right into the farmyard. When we were a good bit up the lane he called me back and he put me under his habit, his black habit and he pressed me up against his lower body. I was a young boy, I was wondering what was he doing here and why was he doing it. I had not a clue but I assumed afterwards that he was probably just doing it for his own pleasure or for his own good and that all the other boys were completely gone and Br Dieter had me with him and we were just up the lane a bit. He had me completely subjected to him so I could not do anything ... When that incident happened I would have been between 11 and 12 when that incident happened just up the lane, a good bit up the lane. 5.85 His bitterness about the abuse he endured was only too perceptible. He said: As a young boy I would be wondering why they would be going on like that ... they took advantage of me. They took the liberty of doing things, and the things they have done were an awful lot of evil things ... I was only a young, innocent boy, and I went through evil things that I didnt want to go through. I went through their devilish hands ... I was only dirt. 5.86 Grahams anger emerged in a tirade against Br Dieters defence that he couldnt remember: The only sad thing I dont like is that if a religious Brother or a priest or a nun and they know very well they have done something, why dont admit to it, admit to the damage that they have done to me while I was in Lota because I didnt ask anyone to send me to Lota. I would have been better off in someones family rather than putting up with all the oral sex and all the abuse that I was subjected to ... if he is not willing to tell the truth, I suggest go back to him and ask him face to face did he do this because I was very very annoyed when he said he doesnt remember ... Now, Graham who is here today remembers what happened. Im not making up a story. Im not making up a fairy tale. Im not making up lies. I am telling the truth. ... Who has the right to take a mother away from you? Who has the right to take a child away from his mother? And whos idea was it to grab children and fill their schools up with children, not knowing what was going on? The devil was in my school. The devil was working through different Brothers ... I would ask him to come forward and admit his mistakes, admit his abuse, and admit that he had done it because if he doesnt admit to it down here, let me tell you when he goes to meet his maker, Jesus is going to say, What have you done to my Graham? What have you done to him? 5.87 When Br Dieter gave evidence, he again said he had no memory of the witness as a boy and he denied the oral sex, but he accepted that sexual abuse must have happened. He said: I sincerely apologised to him for the dreadful unhappiness I have caused him and I realise the seriousness of my abusive behaviour ... I know that because of his insistence that I did abuse them, then I know that must be true and I have accepted responsibility for that ... One thing that is true is that I did invite some of the adolescent boys individually to tidy my rooms, usually on a Saturday morning, so that would fit into what Graham has been saying. 5.88 He was then asked if that was as a prelude to abusing them, and he replied, Yes, yes. Not in all cases, but that has been the case, yes. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 207
5.89
He was asked to describe his pattern of abuse, and he replied: My pattern of abuse was touching the boys and in some cases masturbating them and generally petting them, that sort of thing ... Not always masturbating, just touching them and, an expression that seems to be quite common now, fondling them.
5.90
He added: I felt sorry for what I had done, but it became a kind of addiction, if you like, at that particular time for me, and it was a great source of stress and worry for me.
5.91
Apart from luring them to his bedroom, he also abused boys in their own beds. He would abuse them while they were asleep in the dormitory. Because he would be under observation in the dormitory, Br Dieter never went beyond surreptitious touching. But in his bedroom, he admitted, there was a chance for more extensive activity, I tended to touch them inappropriately and be more affectionate towards them and that. He was asked to reconsider his denial of oral sex taking place, and he said: Well, I will put it this way, it is possible that I have done so and if I have done so, I sincerely apologise to him, from the bottom of my heart I apologise. I have no recollection of doing it, but I apologise to Graham ... and I hope he forgives me.
5.92
5.93
The third witness to give evidence to the Committee, Frank, also described being abused by Br Dieter. He told the Committee: I can recall very clearly when I was thirteen years of age in the Sancta Maria pavilion, I was bending down cleaning a bathroom when Br Dieter approached me from behind. He locked the bathroom door behind him and took out his penis and said to me "let me see yours". I said to him "no". He then said to me "if you don't, I will give you a good hiding".
5.94
The witness went on to describe an act of masturbation perpetrated by the Brother: He then let down his habit and told me to say nothing about what had happened to anybody. This type of abuse of I having to rub Br Dieter's penis happened on quite a number of occasions over the next number of years until I reached 15 years approx. This took place in the Sancta Maria pavilion, his own bedroom and also in the bathroom. When he took me to his bedroom it was usually in the night time. He would wake me from the dormitory where I slept with the rest of the lads and in single beds. Each dormitory had 36 beds. I slept about seven beds from the door of his bedroom which was off the dormitory.
5.95
The witness recalled other specific acts of gross sexual assault, one of which occurred on Christmas Day. He said Br Dieter engaged in oral sex and anal rape. In respect of the latter, he stated: I could not understand why this was going on and this type of abuse happened to me by Br Dieter on at least four different occasions. I can remember one day Br Dieter brought me to his bedroom and tried the same sort of abuse ... and I said "no" and I used the word "f*** it, no more, finished" as this was very very sore I said to him. He got very mad with me and I got a beating from him.
5.96
The abuse began in a bathroom, when he claimed anal intercourse took place. Thereafter, it occurred A right few times, make about six months, maybe a year. I don't know for sure, about a year. It took place Twice or three times a month or something like that. 208 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
5.97
Br Dieter then gave evidence. He said he had a good recollection of the witness. Again, he began with an apology: The first statement I would like to make is that I feel very sad and sorry for Franks experiences and I regret very much the unhappiness I have caused him. In relation to today's evidence, I am sad that he should accuse me of physical violence of beating him up and that sort of thing, because that is not the sort of person that I am. When I was accused by Frank and appeared before [A Garda Sergeant], I think it was around the end of 1995 and perhaps the beginning of 1996, I pleaded guilty, but I told [the Sergeant] and the other Garda that were there at the time present when this allegation from Frank was made that, yes, I did abuse Frank but that I didn't accept and denied the allegations of anal and oral abuse, also I denied the beatings. That is what I have to say.
5.98
He then spelt out what he accepted he was guilty of doing: I know I am guilty of sexually abusing Frank by touch. He also mentions that he touched me and I encouraged him to do so, that could possibly have been the case, but I think that most of my abuse was by showing my attention for Frank, because I was very sympathetically disposed towards him. As I said in my statement, he was a lonely person and I was tended to look on him as I was myself when I was a young person and I tried to show him affection in an inappropriate way by my behaviour towards him that way ... I had a very genuine affection for Frank, yes, I had ... There was a sexual attraction as well that went with that, yes, unhappily, yes ... I have no recollection of how frequently, but at the same time I don't think in this particular case that the incidents were frequent. ... They took place, to the best of my knowledge, in Sancta Maria pavilion, where I lived. I have no clear recollection of the locations, but they could have taken place in my room in the Sancta Maria pavilion and they could also possibly have taken place in my classroom after school hours, but I am not certain about this because it is a long time ago and because of that I have no clear recollection of the locations of my sexual abuse.
5.99
The sexual abuse stopped, he said, because the witness was moved from the dormitory over which he had control. He told the Committee: my recollection is that Frank ... wasn't very long in Sancta Maria pavilion because he eventually was changed and I can't remember when that took place, he was changed to St Patrick's. So my association with him would have terminated because both pavilions were physically quite a distance apart.
The position of the Brothers of Charity on whether sexual abuse took place in Lota
5.100 Senior counsel for the Brothers of Charity, at the end of the hearings, made clear the position adopted by the Brothers of Charity on the question of whether sexual abuse took place in Lota. He said: I represent the current community of the Brothers of Charity, not all of those who were ever there historically, it is not a body corporate. I represent those who are now members of the Community which happen to include some people who have been abusers, and the Brothers of Charity have made no bones about that, we admit that abuse has taken place, of that there is absolutely no doubt, by our members and by many of our members. In terms of this Committee's function in determining whether a particular abuse took place with a particular complainant and by a particular Brother, that is something I can have very little to do with and have avoided getting involved in whether that is true in any particular case or not. That clearly cannot be my function. ... It is perfectly clear that in all three of these cases sexual abuse took place in the most appalling nature and must be condemned and is condemned by this Community CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 209
wholeheartedly and unreservedly. Whether individual acts of sexual abuse took place or not is not a matter for me, with great respect. 5.101 Following the appearance in court of a Brother on 21 September 1999, Br Alfred Hassett, the Provincial Superior, issued the following apology: We deeply regret any abuse which may have taken place and we offer our apology to any person who may have been the victim of such abuse. Our first concern is for the victims of abuse, whatever the source of that abuse ... As an organisation involved with people with learning disability we have in place specialist counselling teams, one of them in the Cork area, with back-up support from a national counselling co-ordinator. This team is ready to help any person with a learning disability who may have been the victim of abuse and this help can be offered on a totally confidential basis. I would encourage anyone wishing to make an allegation to go directly to the Garda. 5.102 The fact that abuse took place is not in dispute. What this apology fails to address is the Congregational responsibility for what happened in their schools. The question that arises is the extent of the abuse, and whether it was systemic.
The Brothers of Charity on the emergence of sexual abuse

5.103 Br John OShea, leader of the region that incorporates both Britain and Ireland, gave an account of how sexual abuse emerged as a serious issue for the Congregation. He told the Committee: I suppose it became a very significant issue in 1995, at late 1995 we were informed that somebody had gone to the Garda Station and had made allegations that they had been abused during that time. 5.104 Prior to 1995, he said that allegations were regarded as individual incidents: The position prior to that is that there would have been a number of individual allegations, I think they would have been seen as isolated incidents and they would have been broadly dealt with as isolated incidents, that there wasn't the sense in which we had after 1995, that this was a bigger issue than we had imagined. I suppose prior to that, there wouldn't have been the kind of awareness of the impact that it had on the people who were abused. 5.105 He went on to state: I feel for us that 1995 was the watershed in the sense of our awareness that we had a fairly significant issue with abuse ... It was quite a shock to us really because it wasn't something we were prepared for, and certainly the individual incidents we would have known of previously didn't add up to a comprehensive picture, if you like, of widescale abuse. 5.106 In the written statement prepared by Br John OShea for the Emergence Hearings and received by the Commission on 23rd June 2004, he wrote: Prior to 1995, there were a few isolated allegations of abuse which were dealt with as deemed appropriate at the time. However, it was not until late 1995 that there was an awareness of more widespread abuse or the damage it had caused. 5.107 He admitted, however, that their record keeping was poor. He explained: Yes, I suppose one of the things is many of our files have a limited amount of information in them. We would have some sense, again, that where allegations would be reported, I would feel that maybe they necessarily wouldn't be committed to writing. Yes, I think 210 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
maybe our broader culture or even the wider culture wouldn't have been as it is now where every allegation would be documented, there would be less kept on files. 5.108 When asked what procedures were in place for managing reported sexual abuse before 1995, he replied: I divide them between lay people and Brothers. Each of the centres that I have mentioned, Cork, Galway, Waterford and so on, would have their own administrative structure and there would have been a Director of Services and in those days it would have been a Brother, who would be broadly responsible for the administration of the centre. The Brothers would be responsible to the Provincial at the time and I think particularly if incidents related to Brothers, that it would entail the involvement of the Provincial. Where they involved lay people, I think the structure, as I say, my sense is that legal advice would have been involved and that we would have acted on that. I suppose in regard to Brothers, depending on the time it was, if it was the early 1990s because we would be more aware of the kind of Department guidelines and so on and there was a broad awareness, that people would be withdrawn from contact with service users. I feel that possibly in all cases Garda may not have been notified, because I think our awareness of that would maybe be stronger at a later time, but essentially that people would have been withdrawn. Again, I think the awareness of the level of allegation, if you like, in the sense that now if we speak of an allegation, we have a whole lot of accumulated knowledge as to what an allegation can entail or what it is likely to entail, and I feel back then that there wasn't the same thing when you speak of an allegation. I would feel people didn't have a clear-cut idea of just what the allegation entailed maybe or put it down, if you like, people who were behaving inappropriately at various levels, that it might be seen somewhat differently to how we would now view it and with the knowledge that we have of the impact that allegations or abuse did have on people. 5.109 He was asked where the records from that period were kept, and he replied: I suppose where they happened in locations and involved lay people, there would be records. The records would be kept at the location where the Centre was administered. 5.110 Complaints about abuse by lay people were recorded and kept. The situation was different for Brothers who had been reported for sexual abuse. He told the Committee: In regard to Brothers, certainly later allegations would be documented. I suppose I have a sense again that it is only now that it is coming to light that certain allegations were made that there wasn't an awareness of until quite recently. I suppose our files in regard to Brothers tended not to have a lot of documentation on them, and I would have some sense again that, I suppose, the earlier allegations would have happened, the less likelihood there is that there would be something on file. I would also be aware of a particular situation that now with the knowledge I have, I can fairly definitely say it was an allegation of sexual abuse, but the document on the file doesn't specify that it was abuse. 5.111 Complaints against Brothers were either not written down at all or were in codified language designed to obscure the nature of the offence. They were dealt with, said Br OShea, in sort of a hushed way. Despite this fact, enough records have survived to allow an examination of Br OSheas claim that prior to 1995 there were a few isolated allegations of abuse, and no awareness of more widespread abuse. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 211
The convicted sexual abusers: Br Guthrie

5.112 Br Guthrie gave evidence to the Investigation Committee on 21st March 2002 and again on 14th March 2002. Born in the South East of Ireland in the early 1900s, he was the eldest of three children. He was recruited into the Brothers at the age of 13, and is still a member of the Congregation. He was educated in Belgium and England, and qualified as a primary teacher in the 1930s. He told the Investigation Committee he taught in a school in the UK until 1951 or 1952, when he was brought back to Ireland to work in Lota, where he stayed for 32 years until 1984. In the early 1950s, the Congregation were setting up a Special School in Lota and there was a need for trained teachers to enable the Department of Education to recognise the School officially. The Department gave recognition to the School in 1955, and Br Guthrie was made Principal of the School from the start until 1974, when a lay principal was employed and he took over as school manager and then Chairman of the Board of Management. He held this latter post until 1984, when he was removed from the School because of complaints made against him. He was prosecuted for sexual offences in December 1995. He spent seven months in 1996 in Our Lady of Victory, a treatment centre in Stroud in the UK run by the Order of the Holy Paraclete for religious with psychological and behavioural problems. He returned in December 1996 to answer the charges in court. He pleaded guilty to sample charges in December 1996, and was sentenced on 14th February 1997 to four years imprisonment, reduced to one year. He now resides under supervision. He accepted the description of himself as a paedophile, someone whose sexual preference was for children, in his case teenage boys. He said he had no sexual attraction to them until they were aged 11 upwards to about 14, and he was most attracted to 11- to 14-year-old boys with bright eyes and good speech. He admitted to mutual masturbation but denied ever going any further with the children. His sexual activities started in 1937, when he was around 22 years old, and continued until 1983 when he was 69 years old with, according to himself, prolonged intervals of abstinence. His modus operandi varied, but it usually involved isolating a child in a secluded part of the building. Aware of the ever-present danger of discovery, he found various hiding places where the abuse could take place. These nooks always had a well-planned escape route. He also admitted visiting the childrens beds at night in the dormitory where he was the supervisor. He did not think the other Brothers or members of staff were aware of what he was doing. On one or two occasions, he did hear talk among the boys. He recalled his reaction to one particular occasion when he heard there was talk: I brought them into a classroom and I sat them down and I said to them, people are saying this about me. Any of you that like to come with me now, we will go to the Brother Superior and talk to him about it, and, of course, that shut them up for good. Nobody took me up on it. 5.120 He said that, if any boy resisted his advances, he would leave him alone, and denied ever threatening, coaxing or forcing anyone. Despite his remarkable memory for dates and time and place, he could not recall the number of boys he abused over the 32-year period. However, on the first occasion when he gave evidence 212 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
5.113
5.114
5.115
5.116
5.117
5.118
5.119
5.121
to the Commission, when asked why he could not remember individuals that he abused, he answered as follows: For one reason the lapse of time and the others, I suppose a fair number. I have no idea how many but there was a good number ... Over 32 years. 5.122 He was asked if the number would be in the hundreds, and he replied: I might stop around a hundred, but it could have been more, it could have been less even. 5.123 By way of explanation, rather than excuse, he said he believed that the separation from his parents in his early years and the loneliness and isolation of the life of a Brother was the reason why he developed in the way he did. Institutional responsibility 5.124 Br John OShea, outlined in the statement prepared for the Emergence Hearings, held in June/July of 2004, the reasons why the Brothers of Charity have issued apologies in respect of child abuse: When allegations of abuse by two named Bothers were first brought to our attention in December, 1995, the two named Brothers confirmed that they had been involved in the sexual abuse of children in our care. The two named Brothers later admitted in court that they were guilty of perpetrating sexual abuse on children in our care and received custodial sentences in respect of this abuse. 5.125 The statement went on to give details of the sentences imposed on these two Brothers and a third Brother who was also found guilty of sexual abuse. At paragraph 5 of the statement, the Regional Leader explained that, when the allegations were first brought to the attention of the Congregation, the two Brothers against whom the allegations were made were immediately removed from locations where they would be in contact with service users and were placed under strict supervision. They had also both attended a seven-month therapeutic programme for sexual abusers. The difficulty with Br OSheas statement is that December 1995 was not the first time the Congregation of the Brothers of Charity had become aware of sexual abuse perpetrated by Br Guthrie. Br Guthrie started his teaching career in a primary school in the UK, run by the Brothers of Charity, in 1936. By his own admission, he started to sexually abuse children in 1937. Br Guthries activities first came to the attention of the Congregation authorities in 1951. In a letter dated 31st July 1951 from Fr Harvey9 to Fr Gordon,10 who would appear to be a senior member of the Congregation, it was stated: Dear Father Gordon, A very serious situation has arisen at Broadgreen. Bro. Guthrie has been accused of serious offences against boys, and the matter has been placed in the hands of the police; so I expect they will begin their investigation as soon as possible. Br Gerhard11 will probably also be brought into it. Whether anyone else will be accused, I dont know. I saw Br Guthrie this morning and he has no defence; I have told him I shall report to the Superior General, and he will probably be dismissed. Hence, I believe he will cross to
9 10 11
5.126
5.127
5.128
5.129 5.130
213
Ireland to-day. I have told him what he does or where he goes is no concern of mine, but I have not transferred him to Belmont Park. I told him, however, that I will communicate to you any instructions, etc. that I receive from Fr. General. I have sent Bro. Rory12 this morning to Moffat to inform Bro. Gerhard of the situation, and he will probably do like Br Guthrie. You should receive their clerical suits if they offer them, and also help them with clothing, and in any other way, at least for the time being. Whatever these fellows do, is on their own initiative. They are not to remain at Belmont Park. You would, however, do well to know where they stay, at least for the time being. But I do not want to know. As you see, I am in a very difficult situation, and am trying to act for the good of the Congregation. I am now just going to ... with Messrs. [Solicitors], to interview a K.C.13 on the matter. I will then perhaps see things much clearer and will write you again as soon as possible. In the meantime, please aid me with your prayers. Greetings in the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary. Yours devotedly ... in JC 5.131 5.132 The letter accepted that Br Guthrie had no defence to the allegation that he had committed serious offences against boys, and prepared the ground for his probable dismissal. Fr Harvey wrote again on 1st August 1951, following his meeting with the legal team. The mood had changed, because with the two Brothers out of the way he had been given some assurances that the matter would fizzle out. He wrote: Dear Father Gordon, Further to my letter of yesterday, I think I can say that things are somewhat better, and we are hoping there will be no publicity in the matter. [The Solicitors] have helped very considerably; they took me yesterday to interview Counsel in ... and as a result I feel more at ease. Afterwards, I went directly to the Camp at Fleetwood and saw each of the Brothers privately. None of them has anything to fear if the police make their enquiries, so with Gerhard and Br Guthrie out of the way, we are hoping the matter will fizzle out. Now with regard to Br Guthrie and Gerhard. Before I went to see Counsel, I got them away quickly, and told them to keep away from our Houses but to get in touch with you eventually, as I would communicate to you any further orders or directions regarding them. My rights and duties have now been made clear to me as the result of my visit to Counsel. I have written again to Fr. General this morning suggesting that Br Guthrie be dismissed and that Gerhard be allowed to remain. As you know, Gerhard has been doing well at Moffat since January, and it is only as a result of Br Guthries irregularities that his case has now become known. I would be glad if you will get in touch with Gerhard and Br Guthrie immediately; they should both be sent to Lota and await till I arrive there next week. The sooner you get hold of them both, the better, as both were given a considerable sum of money, and you require an account of it. I will discuss with you next week the future of these two men. If you think it better to separate them by keeping one at Belmont for the time being, then I have no objection, but you should warn them against talking. Greetings in the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, Yours devotedly in J.C. P.S. I am anxious to know if both are safe in Ireland. When you are sure of this will you please send me a telegram, Everything all right.
12 13
This is a pseudonym. Kings Counsel.
214
5.133
The opinion had shifted, in that it was felt that Br Guthrie could now continue his holy vocation. The next letter was apparently dated 6th August 1951, from a priest in Mount Mellary Abbey, Cappoquin, County Waterford to the Rev. Brother: Dear Rev Brother, Br Guthrie has consulted me about his vocation. Considering his dispositions, other circumstances notwithstanding, it is my humble opinion that there is no reason why he should not remain faithful to his holy vocation, ordinary prudence being used in the assignment of employments to him. Asking a share in your prayers. I am Very Sincerely yours,
5.134
Fr Harvey wrote again to Fr Gordon on 17th September 1951: Dear Father Gordon, I am afraid the Broadgreen affair has taken a very serious turn; they phone me that proceedings will have to be taken. However, I have asked for Counsels advice, and am now awaiting a message from him. The police are coming again to see me on Wednesday afternoon; they are very sympathetic and will do all they can to help; but the matter seems to be out of their hands. However, you must do nothing until you hear from me. I will let you know immediately what transpires on Wednesday. If I get any special instructions from Counsel today, I will write again to you, even today. In the meantime, we can only re double our prayers. Greetings in the SS.HH of Jesus and Mary, Yours devotedly in J. C.
5.135
Ten days later, in a letter to Fr Gordon, concerning the behaviour of another Brother, Br Johann,14 Fr Harvey mentioned that he was still very occupied with the Broadgreen affair and was meeting the Chief Superintendent of Police in a last-ditch effort to put things right. Br Johann had been physically abusive to staff and boys, and the authorities appear to have been in no doubt at all that this conduct deserved expulsion from the Congregation. The meeting took place and on the same day, 27th September 1951, Fr Harvey again wrote: Dear Father Gordon, I have done all I possibly could; but there is no other way. The two Brothers must come back and stand their trial. I have promised the police they will come back on their own. If they do not, a warrant will be issued and that will make matters worse for them. Hence, I think they had better come back at once. At the moment, I do not know if the strike has been settled, so I cannot say if the [boat/train] service is running. They should travel back next Monday night; so that they can come back to Runshaw. If you can find time to come with them I would be glad to talk matters over with you and Fr.Jan.15 I realize, however, that you will probably not want to be away from home, particularly as I have asked you to see to this matter of Br Johann. However, you might consider if it is wise to let the two fellows come over by themselves. What about sending [an escort] with them?
14 15
5.136
215
To-morrow I am meeting [the Solicitors] and probably we shall go also to see the Counsel in ... I am feeling the strain very much, and I know I must be very careful or I shall have a collapse. Please help me still more with your prayers. Greetings in the SS.HH of Jesus and Mary, Yours devotedly in J. C 5.137 Following his meeting with counsel, it was agreed that Fr Harvey would defend the two Brothers and, in a further letter to Fr Gordon, he stated that Everything possible will be done to keep down the publicity of the affair. There is no record in the discovery of the outcome of the case in the UK, but it is clear from the Minutes of the Provincial Council Meeting, held on 2nd October 1951, that the case was to proceed before the courts within a couple of weeks of that date. The Minutes note: Everything has been done to provide for their defence; Advocate and Solicitors have been engaged who will see to the interests of the Congregation. The Vicar General of the Diocese has been informed and he is very sympathetic. 5.139 The details of this case are still not known to the Investigation Committee despite extensive inquiries. By March of the following year, it was clear from a letter from Fr Harvey to Fr Gordon that Br Guthrie had been transferred to Lota, and he was still contemplating where to send Br Gerhard. Fr Gordon, by letter dated 18th March 1952, confirmed that he was sending Br Guthrie to Lota, as suggested by Fr Harvey: If you think the other can be made better use of elsewhere it is alright with me. I have found both of them very willing and useful and I am sure the poor fellows will make well. The both admit that they have a better outlook regarding Spiritual matters. Lack of prayer was the cause of their trouble in the past. 5.141 Br Guthrie immediately took up a teaching post in Lota, and as previously stated he taught 11 to 14-year-old, mild to moderately learning disabled boys. By 1955, he was Principal of the School, a position he held until 1974 when a layman took over. Br Guthrie became School Manager and then Chairman of the Board of Management. He told the Committee that, from 1973 to 1984, he did other jobs and what you call recreational activities with the boys. In 1984, he was taken out of it altogether. I have not been with children since. He was removed, he said, because of the complaints about me. Just why he was removed from the post of Principal was not made explicit, but it may have been related to the concerns expressed in a letter that was sent by the Provincial Superior to Br Finn.16 It said: 21st May, 1975 Dear Brother Finn, Brother Guthrie In reference to the above named I am writing to confirm that it is absolutely imperative that he accept the necessary psychiatric treatment that his case requires. For the
16
5.138
5.140
5.142
5.143
216
implementation of this treatment I hereby request that you make arrangements for him to transfer to Belmont Park where [a doctor] will interview him and prescribe the necessary medication. As this matter is most urgent would you please see Brother Eric17 [Superior of Lota] and explain the urgency of the matter and then, without delay, fix the day for him to travel to Waterford. The sooner he receives treatment the better as the matter could easily pass outside our control and this would be tragic. I shall see Br Guthrie myself the next time I am in Waterford. With every best wish, Sincerely in J.C. Provincial Superior 5.144 There is no evidence that the problem identified in 1975 was ever addressed, or that he was transferred to Belmont Park for psychiatric treatment. His transfer records show no break in his service in Lota between 1952 and 1984. In 1984, Br Guthrie was removed from his post as Chairman of the Board of Management in Lota because of complaints made against him. He told the Committee: I was changed to another house altogether and I did housekeeping and various odd jobs around the house but it was not a place for children. It was a place for grown-ups. 5.146 In a statement made to Garda, Br Guthrie stated: The abuse was happening from 1952 to 1984 ... I can recall coming back from Lourdes after Easter in 1984, after spending three to four weeks there. Brother Bert18 who was Provincial Superior at the time, requested me to Dublin. He informed me of certain accusations being made against me, namely having sexually abused a child. I was not told whether it was one or more. I was kept in Dublin for nine months and then transferred to Limerick and I was given no more contact with children. 5.147 A Senior Child Psychologist on 19th January 1996 made a statement to the Garda, in which she recalled commencing work in Lota in early 1984, and having attended combined clinic meetings and having a considerable amount of interaction with professional staff. During that year, she became aware that a Brother was engaging in behaviour of a sexual nature with boys in residence, and this activity was giving cause for concern. A number of boys were interviewed by a Consultant Child Psychiatrist, for the purpose of validating the sexual abuse in which Br Guthrie was involved. A report was prepared and, as a result of the investigations, Br Guthrie was moved. The full account of the events of 1984 is given below. The author of the statement said that her information about Br Guthries behaviour came from listening to the concerns of other professional staff and from information given to her by the Principal Psychologist in Bawnmore, Limerick, a residential care centre for adults with learning disability, to which many of the boys from Lota graduated. This psychologist said that the male clients that came from the Lota service had been a source of difficulty in Bawnmore because of their unacceptable sexual behaviour. She had uncovered the sexual abuse within months of starting work, and the information emerged in the normal course of her duties. The sexual activities of Br Guthrie were not so secret that probing and sleuthing were needed to uncover them.
17 18
5.145
5.148
5.149
217
The events of 1984 5.150 Between March and May, two psychiatrists had seen an adolescent boy, Paraic,19 who had become depressed and anxious about his sexual activity with another boy and about his masturbation. In April, he disclosed to his headmaster the fact that Br Guthrie had been abusing him. His words were reported in the psychiatric report: I told [the headmaster] that I would let Bro. Guthrie interfere with me The last time was in Wexford just the two of us We used to tickle each other in the privates I would have my clothes off Sometimes white stuff came out of him He pushed his privates into my privates not very often He told me not to tell anyone I was in tents often with him, sometimes he would tickle my privates and I tickled his. 5.151 In April 1984, Dr Noble,20 a Consultant Psychiatrist, wrote a letter to a number of people, including Br Eric the Superior of Lota in which he referred to an interview with Paraic during which disturbing evidence came to his notice. He wrote: Paraic went on to tell me that he was very distressed and upset about incidents that happened on cycling trips. He described how he stayed with Bro. Guthrie on a number of occasions when on these cycling trips both in tents, and also in the same room, and sometimes in the same bed in a house when they would stop on the cycling trips. He told me that he had voluntarily told [the headmaster] about how Bro Guthrie interfered with him during their trips. He told [the headmaster] yesterday and felt much better over talking to him. He said that these incidents had happened on and off over the past three years in trips to [the South of Ireland]. He said the last time was in [the South East]. On that occasion he had travelled alone to [the South East] with Bro. Guthrie. He described in detail how he and Bro. Guthrie had engaged in mutual masturbation on these occasions. He also said that he was warned by Bro. Guthrie not to tell anyone that these homosexual incidents had occurred ... In view of the above history I feel this boy should not go on any further cycling trips or should go on any cycling trips until further notice. November 1984 5.152 A memorandum was sent from Dr Noble on 8th November 1984 to Br Eric, [the Hospital Administrator] and [the Medical Director] outlining the allegations so far, and how Br Guthrie had not stopped contact. He had telephoned Paraics house and once again visited Paraics parents to get permission to take Paraic on another trip. No abuse occurred on this trip but it was a strain on Paraic. Paraic did not want his parents informed of the situation. He stated that immediate steps should be taken so that this could not happen again, and a meeting should be set up with all professional persons involved to make sure that Br Guthrie could not have any contact with any pupils, past or present. He also questioned whether Br Guthrie should be in any way involved with disabled residents of any institution, and whether it would be better if he were removed to an administrative capacity elsewhere: Memo. To: Bro. Eric, Superior, [Hospital Administrator] [Clinical Director] From: Dr. Noble Child & Family Clinic
19 20
218
8th November, 1984 Lota, Glanmire, Cork Telephone [redacted] On the 11th April, 1984 I wrote to the above regarding allegations made by a resident in [named school], Paraic. Paraic is an adolescent boy who is a resident in ... School. Paraic at that time was interviewed by Dr. Price and also by [the headmaster] who referred him on to me. Paraic told me that he had been interfered sexually on a number of occasions on cycling trips by Bro. Guthrie. He described these incidents in detail and they are documented in the report of 11th April, '84.... Because of this very serious situation at that time the above people had to be notified that such allegations be investigated and if there was any suspicion they were to be discontinued. In l9.9.'84 I sent a second Memo regarding Bro. Guthrie and how despite being told by the Superior that he was not to go on any further cycling trips with the boys from [named school] he did so. This fact was reported to me by [the headmaster], who had been informed that some of the pupils had brought photos of a trip showing that Bro. Guthrie had resumed his cycling trips with [named school], even though he had left the Brothers of Charity Services in Cork at that time and was resident in Bawnmore, Limerick. I again wrote to the Superior, the Administrator and to the Clinical Director regarding my deep concern about what was going on. All the people involved and myself strongly felt at that time the situation could not be allowed to continue. Our views were communicated to Bro. Bert, Provincial Superior and we were told that all contact between Bro. Guthrie and the children and adolescents both past and present who were in the Brothers of Charity would cease immediately. Unfortunately this did not occur. I interviewed Paraic on 19.9.84. He told me that Bro. Guthrie had phoned him at home and had asked him how the cycling had gone on when he was not present. He asked Paraic to phone him and to let him know a second cycling trip that he would not be participating in went on. Paraic did this and Bro. Guthrie informed Paraic that he was coming to see his parents. Bro.Br Guthrie arrived on 31.10.'84. He talked to Paraics parents and he and Paraic went on a cycling trip. They stayed overnight in the house belonging to a Mr. Byron.21 Both slept in the same room in two separate beds. Paraic said, It was a strain on me if anything went on. However, he stated that Bro. Guthrie did not touch him on this occasion as he had in the past. Thus, apparently there was no sexual contact between Bro. Guthrie and the boy on this occasion. Again Paraic told me that he did not want parents to know anything about what had happened previously. He said that if they felt that this had happened that they would be very upset ....Paraic again repeated to me that he did not want his parents to be told about what had happened in the past as he felt that because of their age that they could not take it, and it would upset them and possibly kill them ... I am absolutely appalled that this situation has recurred again,...... Paraic told me that he would be quite happy to go on cycling trips provided Bro. Guthrie was not there. In view of what has happened I feel that immediate steps will have to be taken by the Superior of the Brothers of Charity in Lota and the Provincial Superior that this can never happen again. I also feel that there should be immediately a meeting between the professional people involved to make it absolutely impossible for Bro. Guthrie ever again to have any dealing whatsoever with any of the pupils either past or present from the Brothers of Charity Services in Cork. I feel that the Superior in Bawnmore should be made known of all the facts and that he should know of Bro. Guthrie's whereabouts at all times. I am also very doubtful if Bro. Guthrie should be in a unit such as Bawnmore, I feel that he should
21
219
perhaps be in an administrative position far removed from residents in any mentally handicapped service. Dr. Noble. Consultant Psychiatrist. December 1984 5.153 Dr Noble wrote a further letter to Br Bert, the Superior of Triest House in Dublin, informing him of the situation. He was appalled that Br Guthrie was still in contact, and had even written to Paraics mother asking her to get Paraic to phone him at Triest House. Dr Noble wanted to know what action the Congregation were pursuing in relation to the matter: Bro. Bert Provincial Superior Re: Paraic Dear Br Bert ... I visited [named school] on 27.11.84 and interviewed Paraic. He told me Bro. Guthrie had written to his mother on the previous weekend asking her to have her son, Paraic, phone him at a number in Dublin over the weekend. Paraic was able to tell me the telephone number,... the phone number of Triest House. Paraic said this message did not affect him, but went on to say that It doesnt affect me much unless he takes me on a trip. He went on to say he does not want to go on cycling trips with Br Guthrie or to meet him. He said he would like to go on cycling trips if Br Guthrie was not present. ... However, I am appalled to find now, despite the seriousness of the matter that led to Br Guthries removal from the Brothers of Charity Services in Cork, that he is still continuing to visit and harass this boy. I want to re-iterate my concern for the mental welfare of Paraic and out of deference to his wishes (as stated above), I have not discussed this matter with his parents. Following my discussion with you in [named school] on 27.11.84 I wish to state that I am not alone in my concern about the lack of progress in this case. This is a great source of concern to the professional members of the staff and Community mentioned above, and, also to [the Head Master] and his staff who are aware of this problem. As I feel that the mental welfare of this boy is at risk, I would appreciate it if you would write to me as soon as possible, and let me know what course of action you and the Congregation are pursuing so that I and the staff can be assured that Paraic will no longer, ever again, be subjected to stress by contact from Bro. Guthrie. Thank you for your help in this very serious matter, Yours sincerely, Dr. Noble January 1985 5.154 Br Bert replied on 17th January 1985, in which he noted that he had talked to Br Guthrie and issued him with a stern warning, and that Br Guthrie had given him a written undertaking to end his relationship with Paraic: Dear Doctor Noble, I thank you for your letter which I received by hand recently. Since receiving it I have had two further very serious talks with Brother Guthrie, following which I issued a stern warning to him. I feel that now there will be a complete end to his 220 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
relationship with the lad concerned. Further, Brother has given a written undertaking to that effect to me. I thank you most sincerely for your concern and solicitude in this whole matter. Kindest regards and every good wish. Yours sincerely Bro. Bert Provincial Superior 5.155 On 11th June 1985, Dr Noble once again wrote to Br Bert. He noted that, although Br Guthrie had not been in touch with Paraic or his family again, Paraic was living in absolute fear of him contacting him again and was, as a result, seriously depressed. Dr Noble felt that he had no option but to inform his parents of the situation and this was done. On 25th October 1989, the Principal of [named school], wrote a memorandum about a further telephone contact from Paraics mother: [Paraics mother] telephoned [school] today (around mid-day) expressing deep concern that her son Paraic, a past pupil [now residing elsewhere], was told by another past-pupil ... that Br Guthrie was visiting her home today and would also be calling [to Paraics house] ... [Paraics mother] was most upset to hear this from Paraic and stated neither she nor Paraic wished to meet with or talk to Br Guthrie ever again and Paraic was very upset at the prospect of meeting him anywhere. I consulted Dr. Noble at his home by telephone at lunch time and later telephoned [Paraics mother] (as arranged) to advise and confirm what I had already told her on the telephone earlier. 1. Paraic should not meet with or talk to Bro. Guthrie if he does not wish to no matter where he may see him. 2. Bro. Guthrie should not be invited into the family home if he visited if that was [Paraics mothers] wish and should be told politely but firmly that he was not welcome in their household. I also made [Paraics mother] aware of Dr Nobles offer of an immediate appointment should Paraic or his mother wish to meet with him and that Dr. Noble also wished to be informed if Bro. Guthrie made any contact with Paraic or the family against their wishes. [Paraics mother] apologised for contacting the school again about Paraic and was thankful for the support offered. 5.157 The persistence of Br Guthrie in pursuing this young teenager contradicts his testimony to the Investigation Committee. He was asked if he had ever fallen in love or had become strongly attracted to an individual, and he replied: I would not say so, no. I never even had what people would call a pal. When I was moved from one house to another, for example, I never worried about the people I left behind ... anyone that is acquainted with religious life knows that there were two mortal sins when you joined religion. The first was not to get up at the right time in the morning and the other was to have a particular friend. They were strictly taboo in those days. 5.158 His relentless pursuit of this young boy suggested more than a passing sexual interest: he appeared to be planning an enduring relationship. The remarkable control he exercised over these vulnerable children is well illustrated by this case. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 221
5.156
5.159
Prior to 1995, Br Guthrie presented the Congregation with several incidents of sexual abuse. He was known to be a serial sex abuser. His deeds were not isolated incidents. Br Guthrie sexually abused children under his care over a period of more than 45 years. Thirty-two of those years were spent in Lota, where he taught mild to moderately learning disabled young boys. He was sent to Lota by the authorities in the Congregation, in the full knowledge that he was a paedophile who had faced conviction in England. There is evidence in 1975 that something was amiss, and Br Guthrie himself told the Garda that he was caught out a few times. He subjected so many boys in Lota to sexual assaults that he cannot remember the numbers, despite having an excellent memory in respect of every other aspect of his life. Despite the dearth of information kept on the Brothers by the Congregation, there is clear and unequivocal documented evidence that the risk Br Guthrie posed to young boys was known. In spite of his known abusive behaviour, Br Guthrie was made Principal of the School from 1955 to 1974, and then in 1974 he was made School Manager and, in 1981, Chairman of the Board of Management. He was given these positions of power and authority, with control over staff and boys, without the possible consequences being considered. As a result, by his own admission, a hundred or so vulnerable boys were abused. The case against him was so overwhelming in 1951 it defies belief that the authorities could have seen fit to place him in a residential school for vulnerable young boys. Yet, this is precisely what they did, in the hope that Br Guthrie will be all right in Lota. On 1st August 1951, when Br Guthrie was in trouble with the police in England, Father Harvey wrote: p.s. I am anxious to know if both are safe in Ireland. When you are sure of this will you please send me a telegram, Everything all right.
5.160
5.161
5.162
Br Guthrie was stowed safe in Lota, with no regard for the safety and welfare of the boys residing there. That decision can only be seen as one taken to protect the Brothers of Charity from scandal and prosecution. Br OShea in his Opening Statement, made two assertions about sexual abuse prior to 1995: Prior to 1995, there were a few isolated allegations of abuse which were dealt with as deemed appropriate at the time. However, it was not until late 1995 that there was an awareness of more widespread abuse or the damage it had caused.
5.163
5.164
He also stated that there was no awareness before 1995 of the damage that sexual abuse could cause. This is not borne out by the documented evidence. The serious effects of sex abuse were made abundantly clear to the Congregation in the series of reports written by child psychiatrists in 1984. The victims of Br Guthrie were sexually abused so frequently that it became part of their daily lives. As they had no power to do otherwise, they obeyed his demands, and it was only years later that they were strong enough to come forward and report what had been done to them. In the course of his Garda statement, one of the complainants said: What was happening between the Brother and myself I thought were the rules of the school. I was told when I went to the school first, that the Brothers were to be obeyed at all times and anything they ask you to do you were to do it. 222 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
5.165
The convicted sexual abusers: Br Dieter

Conviction: UK (September 1998) 5.166 In September 1998, Br Dieter received his first criminal conviction in the UK on the complaint of George,22 a resident in a residential home and sheltered accommodation for vulnerable adults run by the Brothers of Charity in the UK. Br Dieter had been transferred there in 1970, after the disclosure of sexual abuse in Galway; described below. The abuse took place between 1971 and 1973. He was placed on probation for three years, on condition that he attended a sexual offenders course run by the probation service in the UK. Conviction: Cork Circuit Criminal Court (November 1999) 5.167 In November 1999, Br Dieter received one of the most severe sentences ever imposed in this country for crimes of child sexual abuse. He pleaded guilty to 18 sample counts of child abuse of young boys in Lota. Br Dieter received two years imprisonment in respect of each count (36 years) with a review in 18 months. This review was heard in June 2001 and the remainder of his sentence was suspended. Conviction: Galway Circuit Court (November 2000) 5.168 Br Dieter pleaded guilty to 22 counts of child sexual abuse of boys in Renmore at Galway Circuit Court in November 2000. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment, with the condition that the three-year sentence run from the same date as the Cork sentence received in 1999. Conviction: Cork Circuit Criminal Court (February 2002) 5.169 In 2002, he was sentenced to five years imprisonment, with four years suspended, after pleading guilty to two sample counts of sexually abusing boys in Lota. Some 75 other charges were taken into account. Br Dieters background 5.170 Br Dieter was born in the 1920s. He was the second youngest in a family of five children. His father died when he was young, and the following year he was recruited into the Brothers of Charity and was sent to the Juniorate in Preston in the UK. His mother died of cancer during his first year in the Juniorate and he was not allowed home for her funeral. He told the Committee that he was sexually abused once during his time in the Juniorate by a boy four years older than himself. He never reported the incident because he hero-worshipped the other boy. He was in the Juniorate from the age of 11 until he was professed when he was 18. When he was a postulant, on an annual retreat, a priest had invited him to his room and had made sexual advances. He resisted them and felt very angry about what had happened. Initially, he wanted to become a teacher, but his Irish language skills were poor, so he could not train as one. Instead, he began work as a carer in Belmont Park Psychiatric Hospital, a private hospital run by the Brothers of Charity. In 1945, when he was 20 years old, he was transferred to Lota to work as a nurse with severely disabled children. They were confined to bed, and they needed spoon feeding and they needed to be individually sort of encouraged to use the toilet. He did this arduous work for six years. He lost weight and became quite ill. During this time, the Superior made sexual advances to him, and he began to have thoughts that he might be homosexual. He recalled years later, to the psychologist at Stroud, that a relative (his sister) used to visit him on a Sunday. While she was there, the Superior invited her up to his room for a coffee. She accepted. He was approached by the Superior early in the morning and was told that she
22
5.171
5.172
223
had stayed the night, and he asked him to take her home before any of the Brothers found out. Br Dieter was very upset by this discovery. Again, he was afraid to say anything about it. 5.173 Br Dieter was struggling with his sexual orientation, and trying to control his sexual urges, yet his early experience in the Brothers of Charity was that the vow of celibacy was being regularly broken by religious men of standing and authority. In or around 1953/1954, he attended a training course in Belgium. When he returned to Lota in 1955, Our Lady of Good Counsel School had obtained official recognition as a Special School. Br Dieter described the new position he held within the School as a teacher under inspection. In 1957, the Department of Education recognised him as a teacher because of his experience. He was given the post of Assistant Teacher. Following a period of teaching in Cork, he returned to Lota in 1961, and remained there until 1965. In July 1965, Br Dieter was moved to Renmore, Galway, where the Brothers of Charity were managing a School. At his oral hearing before the Committee in March 2002, he explained: At that particular time then there was a very prominent, a very dominant association in Galway for mentally handicapped who were anxious to start a centre in Galway City, as a kind of residential day school for handicapped children and they approached the Brothers about the possibility of a Brother going there to start this. I was appointed to go there and I asked if I could be dispensed from it because of my I felt totally inadequate for the position but they told me that they had confidence in me and they were totally unaware of my sexual abuse behaviour. They were totally ignorant of that and it was for that reason I was reluctant to be transferred to Galway. I was in Galway from 1965 to April 1969 when abusive behaviour was reported to the Superior ... and from there then I was transferred to our psychiatric hospital in Waterford. 5.177 In cross-examination, Br Dieter noted that the abuse was not reported by a pupil but by a member of staff, although he was unable to recall whether the member of staff involved was a fellow Brother or a lay member of staff. A full account of these events is given below. As a result of this complaint, Br Dieter was removed from Renmore to Belmont Park, the Brothers psychiatric hospital in Waterford. He testified that he remained in the hospital until January 1970. However, he claimed he was not there to receive professional help and counselling, but rather to help out in the hospital. He held the post of Acting Secretary I.N.C.A. (Irish National Council on Alcoholism). He was then transferred, in 1972, to a residential school in the UK for adults with learning disabilities. He became involved with a resident in the school and sexually abused him. This led to his conviction in 1998. He attended two courses in the UK, the first was a course in special education in Preston, and then a course at a polytechnic attached to Leeds University where he obtained his certificate in education. With this qualification and recognition as a trained teacher, he began teaching in 1974 in a junior school for children aged 7 to 11 years, where he remained for 15 years. He claimed that he had not abused anyone since 1973. He retired in 1989 and lived with his Community in the UK until 1995, helping out in the working of the house, doing voluntary driving, and visiting the elderly in a home. In a psychological report prepared for his trial in the UK, a clinical and counselling psychologist concluded that, following his treatment in Stroud and in view of his decision to withdraw from 224 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
5.174
5.175 5.176
5.178
5.179
5.180
5.181
sexual relationships and recommit himself to celibate life, a decision he took in 1973, Br Dieter constituted a low risk in terms of re-offending. 5.182 The trial judge in the case in the UK took into account his plea of guilty, his age (73) and the fact the he was a man of hitherto unblemished character and placed him on probation for three years on each count concurrently, on condition he attend a sexual offenders programme run by the Probation Office in England. The judge appeared to have had no idea of the reason for Br Dieters transfer to the UK; it would appear that Br Dieter did not disclose his history of sexual abuse in Ireland to the psychologist. The sentencing judge referred to Br Dieters upbringing and background: Yours is a very sad story indeed. It is a Dickensian story. I do not want to say more than is necessary to justify the sentence I am passing but you have a wretchedly sad childhood, characterized by the untimely death of devoted parents, then your recruitment and placement in the hands of an entirely different religious order where you yourself, as a young child, had a desperately sad time of it. Then, as a postulant and as a novice in this order, the abuse that you yourself suffered from those above you and in turn, of course, as is often the case, you abuse someone else. Yours is a very sad background, indeed. It is no excuse but it is an explanation for the wretched life you have had, particularly as a young man. Quite frankly the general public have, in recent years come to realize the lamentable criteria of recruitment that were applied 50 years ago or so by religious orders in recruiting very young men, children, to boost their numbers and the methods that were adopted. When I say, the methods that were adopted the encouragement, the enticement of people like you who were 11 years of age. That has all changed, and let it be said that it has all changed. It was asking for trouble, it was sowing the seeds for disaster and you have to then battle within that confined claustrophobic religious organization with your own puzzling sexuality and so you did and this is how this happened: opportunity, privacy and power in a small way. 5.185 When Br Dieter appeared before the Investigation Committee, his standard response to most questions asking for details of the abuse he had perpetrated in Lota was to say that he could not remember. He was precise and prompt in recalling other matters, such as the dates of his transfers between schools, and the names of his colleagues. He was asked, for example, to estimate how many boys he had abused in Lota, and he replied: I cant remember really. I cant remember ... I couldnt possibly give you a figure ... It is an approximation. It is a long time ago ... I would say about 20 ... 5.186 Br Dieter was in Lota for 20 years, from 1945 to 1965, and this estimate of about 20 boys clashes with some of his other evidence. In another part of his testimony, he admitted he had a frequent compulsion to go to a boy for sex. This compulsion would occur weekly. He explained: It was well planned in the sense if I needed the boy or felt the need of a boy I would, for example, in a classroom situation, I would ask him if he would come back after class. 5.187 While he said he could not remember specifics, Br Dieter did outline how he set about the grooming process to win a boy over. He explained: I tended to attach myself to one boy and, as I learned afterwards in Stroud, it was a form of they have a name for it grooming, I think was the word, the terminology that was used, in order to get the affection of the boy ... it was an activity that I was ashamed of and at the same time, it is what happened. I became attracted to the boy, and then I CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 225
5.183
5.184
became more familiar with him and tried to gain his trust by being kind to him and that sort of thing. 5.188 He admitted these attractions could lead to a love relationship with the boy. He said, I was very attached to one or two of the boys, yes. That's true. These loving relationships could last a long time, and he believed it was rewarding for the boy as well. He was asked whether he talked to the boy, and if the grooming continued, while he was having sexual relations with a boy. He replied, It was a silent act ... It was basically touching the boys private parts. It could lead to mutual touching that sometimes, but not always, ended in ejaculation. He went on: It took place mostly during the day ... It would be, as far as I can remember, in the classroom, after school hours in the classroom in my room, and I can't remember where else just at the moment ... it would be asking them perhaps to clean the classroom for me after school hours ... It happened sometimes at night, yes ... in that particular case, I would go to the boy's bed and sit there for a while with them and chat with them and then invite them into my room ... he would go back to his bed then. I saw it as a mortal sin, and I was very troubled about it. I was genuinely very troubled ... I went to confession regularly about it ... I realise it is a crime, of course, yes, now ... I think that was my way of thinking, that it was a moral lapse. 5.191 Once he had formed a relationship with the boy, and he felt he could trust the boy concerned, the sexual activity began. In many cases, it became an enduring relationship. He was asked if he maintained contact when the boy had left the School, and he replied, In some cases, I did, yes, yes ... through correspondence. He admitted in some cases he arranged to meet them, and in reply to the question where he would meet them, he replied: It was usually well, on one occasion I arranged to meet one person in Cork ... I met this particular person in Cork on one occasion and in Dublin on another occasion. 5.193 When asked if these assignations were made in order to pursue a sexual relationship, he replied simply, yes, it was, yes. He was then asked if sex had taken place, and he replied, Not particularly ... It is a long time ago so I cannot remember. I am sure that is the case. The circumstances surrounding the departure of Br Dieter from Renmore in Galway 5.194 There are different accounts of how Br Dieter came to be removed from his post as principal of the School in Renmore in 1969. The Department of Education version of events is different to the one given by the Brothers of Charity. The Department of Educations version of events is described below. Mr Parter23 was the District Inspector of Schools, with responsibility for all Special Education Services in Connaught and Donegal. In 1969, he visited the School in Renmore on a routine inspection. In a statement made to the Garda on 13th January 1998, and furnished to the Investigation Committee in the Department of Education discovery, he confirmed that in 1969 he visited the School. During the visit, a boy of around 15 years of age approached him in the school yard and complained that he had been sexually assaulted by the Principal of the School, Br Dieter. He
23
5.189
5.190
5.192
5.195 5.196
5.197
226
questioned the boy, and was satisfied that the boy was making a very serious complaint, and that he would have to report the matter to the School authorities and to his own Department. He then consulted with his superior in Dublin and informed the Provincial of the Brothers of Charity (Br Baldwin).24 He also discussed the complaint with the Manager of the School, Br Kurt,25 (now deceased) who assured him he would investigate the complaint as a matter of urgency. 5.198 Within a couple of days, Br Kurt telephoned him and said Br Dieter had been confronted and, after initial denials, had admitted the sexual abuse of the boy. Br Kurt informed him that Br Dieter had been transferred to Belmont Psychiatric Hospital in Waterford. At the request of his superior, (the then Assistant Chief Inspector with responsibility for Special Education), Mr Parter made a written report on the matter to him. The report is missing. In their affidavit of discovery to the Investigation Committee, the Department of Education said that this report was last in the possession of the Department in approximately 1989 when it was seen by a now retired inspector. The Department of Education say it is impossible to say at what time since 1989 this report went missing. The Brothers of Charity provided another version of events which is described below. Br Baldwin subsequently left the Brothers of Charity. He had joined the Brothers in the late 1940s, and remained there until the early 1970s. The Brothers retained his services in an advisory capacity for a year after he left the Congregation. On 16th April 1998, he gave a statement to the Garda in which he described his recollections of the details surrounding the events in Renmore concerning Br Dieter as hazy. He did recall receiving an anonymous phone call in his office in Dublin one night in 1969 to the effect that Brother Dieter will be visited by the Garda. He travelled by car the next morning to Renmore and met with Br Kurt, the local Manager/Superior, and spoke with Br Dieter. He recalled that he immediately took Br Dieter with him to Dublin, and transferred him to the service in the UK. He said that Br Kurt managed the local situation and cooperated fully with the subsequent enquiries. Br Baldwin met with a member of the legal team for the Investigation Committee in 2002, and he explained that, in recent times, he had been in touch with the Brothers of Charity and they had made some records available to him which would indicate that Br Dieter did not transfer immediately to the UK, but had instead spent some months in Belmont, County Waterford and he must have been mistaken in his earlier account given to the Garda. Br Baldwin was unable to be of any further assistance to the Committee as to the identity of the anonymous caller. He confirmed that he, as the Provincial of the Congregation at the time, had not initiated any internal investigation into the allegations, but had preferred to leave it to the Garda. He confirmed that he did not contact the Garda directly himself and was not contacted by them, nor was he aware of the outcome, if any, of the Garda investigation. He was certain in his recollection that Br Dieter did not deny the veracity of the allegation and, because of this fact, he decided to remove Br Dieter forthwith from Renmore and transfer him to a position that did not bring him into contact with children. He stated that Br Dieter was moved immediately. He confirmed that a unit in the UK was a suitable location for the transfer of Br Dieter, as it was a facility for the adult learning disabled, and no children attended this facility.
24 25
5.199
5.200
5.201 5.202
5.203
5.204
5.205
5.206
5.207
227
5.208
The records reveal the following: (1) In the Historical Report (The School Annal/Diary) for Renmore written in December 1970, the following is noted: 21st January Mr Parter, Inspector of Schools, spent all day in school 6th April, Mr Parter, Inspector of Schools, visited the school today. 3rd June Mr Parter, Inspector of Schools examined Br Alvin26 for Diploma, Brother passed. 12th June Brother Br Dieter transferred to Belmont Park. 1st September Mr Walman27 took up duties as Headmaster. (2) Records from the Brothers of Charity record the transfer of Br Dieter from Holy Family School in Galway to Belmont Park in Waterford on 14th June 1970. There are two separate records confirming this date. (3) A Report of the Provincial Council Meetings held at Dominican Retreat House in Cork from 13th to 16th April 1971 records at item 4 that Br Dieter was to be changed from Belmont Park to the UK, on 24th April 1971 (Br Baldwin chaired the meeting which was attended by Brs Kurt, Eric, Bruno28 and Carl).29 (4) Another report of the Provincial Council Meeting held at Triest House on 29th May 1971 records again at item 5 that Br Dieter is in the UK and is happily settled there (Again, Br Baldwin chaired this meeting attended by Brs Eric, Bruno, Claus30 and Franz31 with Brs Kurt and Carl absent). (5) Br Dieter appears on the annual report of the residential centre in the UK on 23rd April 1971: We welcomed Bro. Br Dieter as teacher for our proposed new special school. (6) 24th May 1971: special school opened 5 pupils, Teacher and Headmaster Brother Dieter. (7) List of Brothers and their functions 31/12/1971 Brother Dieter Teacher. (8) The annual report for the year ending 31st December 1972 shows Brother Dieter as a Student. (9) The annual report for the year ending 1974 records: (a) Brother Dieter, Certificate in Education Leeds University, April, 1st 1974, Department of Education Science. (b) Brother Dieter Teaching out (the job was in St. Michaels Primary school and he was there until he retired in 1989). The Western Health Board Inquiry
5.209
In response to the emerging allegations of sexual abuse in Renmore School in Galway, the Western Health Board set up an inquiry in 1999. In response to several written queries from the Chairman/Members of the inquiry team, the Brothers of Charity have consistently told the inquiry that the Provincial Superior at the time recollects that Br Dieter was removed from the Holy Family School in 1969. Br Dieters recollection was that he left the Holy Family School in 1969, and the meagre records available indicate this.
26 27 28 29 30 31
5.210
This This This This This This
is is is is is is
a a a a a a
pseudonym. pseudonym. pseudonym. pseudonym. pseudonym. pseudonym.
228
5.211
These letters from the Brothers of Charity in general have been signed by either the Provincial or the Director of Services in Renmore. For example, Br John OShea, Regional Leader for Ireland and Britain, wrote on 19th July 2004 to the Western Health Board inquiry as follows: As I understand it Brother Dieter was moved from Holy Family School Renmore to Waterford in 1970 as a result of an anonymous phone call to the Provincial at the time Brother Baldwin. It seems to me that there was no follow-up on this incident between 1970 and the emergence of allegations in 1995 and the following years. Brother Kurt, RIP was the Superior in the Holy Family School at that time and my speculation would be that knowledge of the reason for this move could well be confined to Brother Kurt, R.I.P. and Brother Baldwin. I would consider it unlikely that there was any awareness in [the UK], either inside or outside the Congregation, of the reason why Brother Dieter was moved from Holy Family School between 1970 and 1995. Given the above, there was no consideration given to carrying out a risk assessment in relation to Brother Dieters teaching between 1971 and 1989. Likewise, there was no consideration given to withdrawing him from his teaching duties/contact with children. Neither was there any consideration given to notifying the UK Police, the Garda or the relevant Health Authorities.
5.212
Other documented cases of child sexual abuse by Brothers of Charity

5.213 While Brs Dieter and Guthrie were the only staff members of Lota to be convicted of sexual offences, other members of the Congregation were convicted of sexual offences in other Services managed by the Brothers of Charity. Br Roland32 received a two-year sentence in relation to offences in Belmont Park, Waterford in July 1999. Br Herman33 received a sentence of three years in Waterford for the sexual abuse of young people in Belmont Park on 28th October 2004. Incident in Lota in November 1989 5.216 The following is a report by Mr Admas, Qualified Childcare Worker, dated Monday 13th November 1989: Report of Incident on Friday 10th November 1989 I acted on a report from one of our residents, (name redacted) at 5.15 p.m. (approx) that the New Priest was interfering with Robert.34 Robert is 20 years of age and operates in the low moderate/severe range of mental handicap. Robert comes from ... Not knowing what [name redacted] meant by the New Priest I went to the Activation Unit expecting to have been sent on a wild goose chase. But to my complete amazement, at the end of the Activation Unit I witnessed Robert sitting down on a seat with Brother Alaric35 sitting on his lap in a movement of going up and down. Roberts trousers was half down around his buttocks, but this could have been as a result of the clasp being missing from it. My first reaction was one of being completely dumbfounded, and on seeing me Brother Alaric promptly got up and made some comment to the effect that Robert was his best
32 33 34 35
5.214
5.215
This This This This
is is is is
a a a a
229
friend in Lota. I then, straight away, told Robert to come up for his tea, leaving Brother Alaric in the Activation Unit. Some time afterwards, 15 minutes (approx) Brother Alaric came into the Unit during tea and started asking questions regarding the level of handicap of the boys etc. He left promptly after receiving a cool reception. P.S. [name redacted] who operates in the high moderate/low mild range of mental handicap, claimed that Brother Alaric was feeling Robert something which I did not witness. The initial report from [name redacted], which I acted upon, was witnessed by two other members of staff. Mr Admas Qualified Childcare Worker 13th November 1989 5.217 In a letter dated 15th November 1989 from Br Eric (Manager) to the Provincial Superior, Br Eric said the following: Dear [Provincial Superior], It is with deep regret that I feel obliged to send you the enclosed report. I first was made aware of this incident by [the Clinical Director] when he came to my office at noon on Monday last, 13th November. Subsequently that day [the Hospital Administrator] gave me further details re the sequence of events and of how [name redacted] initially reported the matter to him and, at that stage, also handed me a preliminary unsigned report of the incident. The enclosed signed report was handed to me to-day Wednesday 15th November. You will doubtless comprehend that we are faced with a matter of extreme urgency a matter patently calling for immediate psychiatric attention. Im sure you will deal with this as a matter of urgency as it is obvious that Bro. Alaric needs urgent attention for his problem in an appropriate setting. With kindest regards and sincere regret to be burdening you with this unfortunate problem. Yours Sincerely Bro. Eric P.S. This incident occurred in a completely public area anyone could have witnessed it. Fortunately, Mr Admas was the only staff member who went to the Activation Unit at that time, as far as I can ascertain. [He] is one of our more experienced and loyal employees who has been in the service of the Brothers of Charity for [many years] and whose loyalty and commitment is without question ... It is some consolation that he was the sole witness and I am fully confident that his loyalty to the Brothers will prevail in this matter. Bro. Eric. 5.218 The following is a report of a discussion between the Provincial and an unknown author (in the absence of Br Eric due to illness) which took place on 3rd January 1990: Topic: Alleged incident involving Bro Alaric. On the occasion of [the Provincial Superiors] visit to Lota on the 3rd January, 1990, and in the absence of Bro Eric (Superior) due to illness, I asked him if any decision had been taken regarding the reported incident involving Bro Alaric and one of the residents. I said there was concern at all levels that some urgent action be taken to resolve the matter. 230 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
A summary of the points made by [the Provincial Superior] are as follows: 1. Bro Alaric is a very old man, and, if not already senile is bordering on senility. 2. It is often the case that senility brings on an increased sexual awareness and activity. 3. The alleged incident has been viewed with the greatest concern and Br Provincial has had a lengthy discussion with Bro Alaric expressing this concern. The Provincial now believed that there will be no further incidents of this nature. 4. He has considered the options available to him: should he transfer Bro Alaric to an old peoples home or given that he believes there will be no recurrence of the alleged incident leave him in Lota where Bro has requested to stay. 5. He has decided that, for the immediate future anyway, to leave Bro Alaric in Lota. He will keep himself informed of progress and assess the situation on an on-going basis. 6. He anticipated that Bro Eric would be returning to Lota in the next week or so. 5.219 The transfer record of Br Alaric would indicate that he remained in Lota where he had been Superior in charge of the Sancta Maria Pavilion for a number of years in the 1960s. Br Eric 5.220 Br Eric was in charge of the Sancta Maria unit in Lota from 1954 to 1963, along with Br Guthrie and Br Dieter. Sancta Maria unit had 60 boys, divided into two dormitories with 30 boys in each. Their ages ranged between 13 and 18 years. The dormitories were divided in terms of age, Br Guthrie was in charge of one and Br Dieter was in charge of the other. Br Eric admitted to an allegation contained in a Statement of Claim in High Court proceedings from a boy, resident in Lota from the mid 1950s. His counsel asked Did you ever sexually abuse [this boy], to which Br Eric replied Yes. He was then asked to explain to the Committee the circumstances: 1953 was the year, September 1953, and Cork had won the all Ireland hurling final that year and the captain of the team ... about a fortnight after the match ... rang me and he said, "We would like to bring up the cup and have a bit of a party and a celebration for the boys" and I said very good. So, they came up, big number of the local team called Sarsfields, they were the Glanmire area. So they brought the cup up and we had a party and there was whiskey poured in, in plenty, into the cup and we had a good few drinks of the whiskey and the boys then were sent to bed after the party. It was about 10.30. It was much later than the boys would normally go to bed and I was in my room and I left my door slightly open because the switches for the lights were on the wall outside and the boys were a bit excited, you know, being up late for this party. So I got ready for bed myself and just as I put on my pyjamas this boy ran into my room and he was naked apart from the he had the top half of his pyjamas on him, so he started jumping up and down in front of me. I wasn't used to drinking whiskey at the time, as I said it was 1953 and I pressed myself against him and then he went out. 5.222 When asked by his counsel, is that the extent of what happened with [the boy], Br Eric replied That was the extent of it yes.
5.221

5.223 1. Br Guthrie perpetrated sexual abuse for 32 years with at least 100 victims. Br Dieter, who had a room at the other end of the Sancta Maria dormitory from Br Guthrie, was in Lota for 20 years, with a few short breaks, and then was in Renmore for four years, when he was removed and sent to finish his teaching career in England. Between them, these two sexual abusers operated in schools run by the Brothers of Charity in CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 231
Ireland for 58 years. Both were promoted to Principal, and one of them to Chairman of the Board. Several of their colleagues were also accused of sexually abusing children. The crucial questions are, how did this disturbing history of sexual abuse come about? and what allowed it to continue for so long?. 2. Lota was an enclosed and inward-looking Institution, and the pavilion system created three enclosed worlds within an enclosed world. The Brothers in charge had complete autonomy and acted without fear of repercussion. 3. The children with learning disabilities were treated as different, with fewer rights than children outside the Institution. Their near-total dependency on adults to care for them and protect them made them very vulnerable. 4. There was no training provided and no internal structure within the Congregation for reviewing the performance of individual Brothers. Once Brothers were appointed to Lota, they could remain there for decades, even if their performance was unacceptable and unprofessional and their behaviour fell below ethical and moral standards. With no system of inspection and no external supervision, sexual abusers were able to operate with little fear of detection. 5. When sexual abuse was discovered, management failed to take action. They chose to protect the Institution and the reputation of the Congregation, rather than the children. It was the failure of leadership to manage the problem, and remove the abusers, that allowed the sexual abuse to become systemic and pervasive within the Institution.
Emotional abuse and neglect

5.224 As a result of their learning disability, the children of Lota were more dependent and vulnerable than children in general. They required additional attention and help from their care-givers. This need for someone to look after them emerged from the evidence heard at the hearings. Graham told the Committee: My first memory of Lota would be I made friends with the women teachers there ... Yes, they were nice to me. They were kind to me, and I felt more at home with them, an awful lot more so because there was only one reason I can say about these teachers, these women teachers, is that like my own mother, my own mother would have been motherly to me up to, maybe, the time she had me, you know. I realised afterwards that I was privileged to have a mother, even though I didn't know what kind of a mother she was, but I was glad to have her. 5.225 After leaving Lota, he could not praise enough the kindness that other peoples mothers had shown to him. He said: But apart from that, I have experienced other mothers' care with me, and I found loving mothers that I met up with, other people's mothers. 5.226 He then added: even though I said that with the women teachers I felt at home with them, but still I couldn't say anything to them because it would get back to the Brothers about what I said. So even though I appreciated the women teachers, I appreciate them as schoolteachers and that they have never done any harm on me, but it takes big giant 6 foot men to upset you, to do what they like with you because the public out there did not know what was going on in that bloody industrial school. 5.227 The happiest day of his life was when, after the deprivations of his childhood, he finally found a family through marriage: 232 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
It was one of the most nicest and wonderful day I ever had because a family were accepting me into their family and especially my mother-in-law, my mother-in-law to be, and then ... my wife to be. These few days were wonderful days in my adulthood. I saw that there were people there who cared. 5.228 The irony about Lota was that the Brothers who provided the care and the good times were also the sexual abusers. Conall told the Committee: Yes, there was happy times too. I cannot deny that. A lot of people say there was not but there is. There was, of course, it was not all doom and gloom, let us be honest about it. There was good times as well ... The bikes ... The football, I was interested a lot in sports, gymnastics and things ... Even the plays, things we did ... I have to say, I thought Br Guthrie was nice to me at the beginning. 5.229 The emotional state of learning disabled children in the residential schools was seldom given much consideration by the Brothers of Charity. Putting children through the school system was the priority, not whether they were contented and happy. Children with learning disability had a greater need in this regard and they were frequently not regarded as experiencing the full range of human emotions.
General conclusions
5.230 1. The Congregation kept records about sexual abuse allegations concerning lay people, and routinely involved the Garda. The situation was different for Brothers. The allegations were dealt with internally, and no records were kept, or else were kept in codified language. For this reason, factual information about the true extent of sexual abuse did not exist, and abusers were left free to abuse again. 2. The Brothers of Charity failed in their duty of care to the children in Lota, in that they placed a known sexual abuser, unsupervised, in a school with the most vulnerable and at-risk children. They ought to have known that he would commit similar offences. 3. By placing a known abuser in Lota, to avoid the intervention of the English police who were investigating him for sexual abuse offences, the Order showed total disregard for the safety of children in their care. 4. The Brothers of Charity put the reputation of the Congregation over and above the safety and care of children who were among the most vulnerable in the State. 5. The inadequate system of vetting and monitoring staff allowed abusive Brothers to be placed in managerial positions, with direct responsibility for and control over the entire School, staff and boys. Their position of authority within the School made detection an even more remote possibility. 6. When Br Guthrie was removed from his duties in 1984, supervision of him was so inadequate that he still took children from another school on camping trips, and made persistent and unwelcome contact with a boy he had been abusing, to the point of taking him away on further excursions. 7. The Brothers of Charity, despite knowing of his sexually abusive behaviour, removed Br Dieter to an institution in the UK where he abused again. 8. The management of the Brothers of Charity consistently failed to provide a safe environment for the children in their care. 9. When sexual abuse was disclosed, the Brothers of Charity did not conduct any proper investigation into the extent of the abuse. They simply removed the abusers and continued working as before. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 233
10. The Department of Education and the Department of Health did not undertake any regular inspections of either the School, or boys in the care of the School, which could have identified problems occurring in the School. The residents were placed in a School where the Congregation who was charged with their care was reckless and negligent. 11. The additional duty of care owed to these children was not provided by the Brothers or by the State, who delegated this responsibility without provision to ensure that the necessary quality of care was provided. 12. It is incorrect for the Congregation to claim that it only appreciated the extent of the problem of sexual abuse after 1995, when the Garda became involved. The limited documentation that has survived clearly indicated that those in positions of authority within the Congregation were aware that children in their care were at risk of sexual abuse, and were in fact being sexually abused. 13. In its Emergence Statement to this Commission, the Congregation did not examine its own management failures that led to the appalling situation in Lota. The extent of the sexual abuse which was perpetrated in Lota on dependant and vulnerable children was not solely a result of the actions of predatory sexual abusers, but was also due to the extraordinary ambivalence of the Congregation to sexual abuse when committed by one of its own members.
234
Chapter 6
The Sisters of Mercy
Introduction
6.01 This chapter deals with topics that are of general application to the industrial schools run by the Sisters of Mercy. It begins with a brief history of the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy, and then discusses various topics, including the organisational structure of the Congregation, the way in which their religious vows impacted on the nature and quality of the care they provided, and the response of the Congregation to allegations of abuse in their institutions.
Foundation and mission of the Sisters of Mercy

6.02 The Sisters of Mercy date their foundation as a Congregation to 12th December 1831, when Catherine McAuley and two companions made their religious professions at the Presentation Convent, Georges Hill, Dublin and adopted and modified the rules of the Presentation Order as their Rule and Constitutions. In 1835, Pope Gregory XVI gave his approval and blessing to the Congregation for its dedication to the work of helping the poor, relieving the sick in every possible way, and safeguarding, by the exercise of charity, women who find themselves in circumstances dangerous to virtue. The Holy See approved the Rule and Constitutions of the Congregation in 1841. Later that same year, Catherine McAuley died after 10 years of service as Superior of the Congregation. She founded 10 convents in Ireland and two in England. After her death, the Congregation spread to six continents, with communities in North America (1842), Australia (1846), South America (1856), Africa (1896), Asia (1953) and Europe. It was recognised as an Institute of Pontifical Right in 1926. In their Submission to the Commission, the Sisters of Mercy described the system of organisation that developed as the Congregation expanded: While there was one original foundation at Baggot St., Dublin, each individual convent, as it was founded, was established as an autonomous unit with its own governance structure and its own responsibility for attracting new members. Any new foundation thus had a limited pool of Sisters at any given time. One might almost regard each group of Sisters in a local Convent as a self-contained small Congregation. 6.04 Thus, each convent was autonomous, and evolved through local, diocesan and provincial arrangements, but they all shared the common values set out by Catherine McAuley, and the Congregation says that these values must have influenced the way in which the schools were run. The mission of the Sisters is to provide for the relief, education and protection of the poor. This mission has been expressed in different language over the years. The 1926 edition of the Rule and Constitutions of the Sisters of Mercy, which was applicable for most of the relevant period of the Inquiry, sets it out as follows: CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 235
6.03
6.05
Of the Object of the Congregation The Sisters admitted to this Religious Congregation, besides attending particularly to their own perfection, which is the principal end of all Religious Institutes, should also have in view what is the peculiar characteristic of this Congregation: i.e., the most assiduous application to the Education of poor Girls, the Visitation of the Sick and the Protection of poor Women of good character. In undertaking this arduous but meritorious duty of instructing the Poor, the Sisters whom God has vouchsafed to call to this state of perfection should animate their zeal and fervour by the example of their Divine Master, Jesus Christ, who has testified on all occasions a tender love for the Poor, and has declared that he would consider as done to Himself whatever should be done unto them.
Organisation
6.06 Despite sharing a mission and Rule and Constitutions, the Sisters of Mercy continued to develop as separate units. They were not a unitary Congregation and did not have any central authority in the period from 1936 to 1994. Unlike the Christian Brothers and other Congregations, which were organised along provincial lines, with Provincial Councils and, above them, a unitary central Supreme Council with a Superior General, the Sisters of Mercy were organisationally a large number of separate Communities that were united only by their adherence to the same discipline and Rule. Most of the Sisters of Mercy houses were individual Communities, usually consisting of a single convent, whose members worked in the local area operating a school or some other charitable function, but the Community could also consist of a small number of separate convents controlled by a Mother House. An exception to this arrangement occurred in Dublin, in which the Carysfort Community was the Mother House for all the separate convents in the Archdiocese. This included, for example, the Mater Hospital, many primary and secondary schools, the convent at Goldenbridge, whose members operated both the Industrial School and the national school, and also worked in the local community, and Rathdrum. Carysfort was the closest parallel to a provincial structure because it had a large number of satellite Communities. The more usual situation was for a convent to stand alone or to have just one or two offshoots. For example, in the case of Clifden, there was one such subsidiary house at Carna. In Cappoquin, the convent was self-contained and controlled the Industrial School, which later became group homes. It also operated a secondary school. It stood separate from the other convents in the Diocese of Waterford and Lismore. Newtownforbes and Dundalk were also separate entities and thus independent Communities. During the Emergence hearings, Sr Breege ONeill, then Congregation Leader of the Sisters of Mercy, outlined the organisational structure of the Congregation: At that time [1831] she [Catherine McAuley] was very clear that for us to be able to be about that work it was important that we would be locally based, and that we would not be constrained by central Government ... It emerged within 20 years of her founding the first house of the Order in Baggot Street. There were convents established in each of the 26 diocese in Ireland ... In some there might have been eight or nine convents ... These convents were autonomous. They were totally, completely and entirely responsible for their own affairs really. There was little central or there was not a coordinating structure among the convents ... there was not a sort of a central Government that established these, but they were established in each locality according to the need of the locality at the time. 236 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
6.07
6.08
6.09
In his evidence, Dr Eoin OSullivan ascribed the popularity of the Sisters of Mercy with the bishops, and their pre-eminence in the industrial school system, to the organisational structure of the Congregation: ... Bishops throughout the country were looking to have industrial schools in their diocese. They had difficulties with some of the Congregations, particularly the Christian Brothers and the Irish Sisters of Charity on the basis that the Bishop did not have a rule over these Congregations, effectively they took their rule from their provincial leader which probably was based in Dublin. So the Christian Brothers, while they had a working relationship with the Bishop, they ultimately took their rule from their Provincial. Whereas, the Sisters of Mercy, to the best of my knowledge, took their rule from the local Bishop. Bishops far preferred Sisters of Mercy than other Congregations, they were easier to control.
6.10
All this changed following the Second Vatican Council, when the Sisters of Mercy agreed that there would be a central jurisdiction in each diocese, but there was still no hierarchy of power as between one diocesan central authority and another. The process of amalgamation into diocesan central organisations began in the 1960s, but was not completed in the State as a whole until the 1980s. During the period of this development, a further centralising process was undertaken whereby the Sisters now agreed to adopt a central organisation for all Sisters of Mercy members and institutions. This overall centralising movement was completed in 1994, and so the two processes were moving in parallel for a period of time. Sr Breege ONeill described this process as follows: ... our structure changed over the years. In that while we had that autonomous sort of way in the beginning after Vatican Council there was a move to amalgamate the houses in each diocese. That really came out of the sort of the thinking of Vatican II. We set about that and for the next 20 years, from the 60s to the mid 80s that process of amalgamation happened in the 26 diocese. So by the mid 80s we were now diocesan based with a leadership structure in each diocese ... When we had that in place we decided that it would be good to bring the 26 individual units together in another amalgamation. That was because at that time in the mid 80s our numbers were declining. We had a huge spread of ministries throughout the country and we were looking at how could we rationalise, how could we pool our resources so that we could be more effective in the work we were doing ... So by 1994 we formed an amalgamation of those 26 units, together with the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy in South Africa, because they had a connection with Ireland. That is our present structure, which has four provincial units in Ireland. In 1994 we were almost 4,000 people. At the moment in Ireland we have 2,620 Sisters residing in 392 local community houses throughout Ireland.
6.11
Prior to 1983, all Sisters of Mercy Communities, regardless of their size, were subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the local bishop. Under the 1926 Rule and Constitutions, he was the Principal Superior of the Congregation after the Holy See. All Sisters were instructed to respect and obey him. The bishop was given the power to nominate a priest to attend to the regulation and good order of the Community, both in terms of spiritual and worldly matters. The importance of this priests role in the running of individual convents was clear from the following provision: He shall watch over the exact observance of the Constitutions, for the purpose of maintaining good order, peace and charity, and he shall assist the Mother Superior with his counsel and advice, in all important affairs. She shall not undertake any matter of importance relating to the Monastery or the Community, without the Bishops consent.
6.12
The bishop as Principal Superior, after the Holy See, was required to visit the convent at least once every three years. The Superior, or the priest he nominated, was in addition obliged to undertake an annual Visitation, during which he met with each Sister separately. If such Visitations CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 237
took place, they do not appear to have been recorded, because no records of them were discovered to the Commission. 6.13 Each Community had a similar organisation. The Mother Superior was elected for a term of three years by the Chapter and was eligible for re-election for a further term. The Chapter was composed of all Sisters who had a vote. The Mother Superior selected her assistants and proposed them for election. Where the convent did not contain a quorum, i.e. seven Sisters, the bishop nominated the Mother Superior. The Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy of Dublin was the largest Community of Sisters of Mercy in Ireland. Its structure was set out in the Rule and Constitutions of the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy of Dublin.1 This document did not alter the position of the bishop as the Principal Superior, or his nominated priest, but it did change the way the Sisters governed themselves. Supreme authority was ordinarily vested in the Superior General and her Council, and extraordinarily vested in the General Chapter. The General Chapter elected the Superior General and her Council. The Superior General and her Council had the right to transfer Sisters from one house to another. The Council also appointed the local Superiors. Isolation from other Sisters of Mercy institutions was not a necessary feature of life in Goldenbridge Industrial School, because it was part of the family of institutions under the central authority of Carysfort. The Superior General of Carysfort appointed the Resident Managers and selected the Sisters who were sent to Goldenbridge. Goldenbridge was under the direct control of Carysfort in all matters concerning finance and other related matters. This arrangement would have been expected to give rise to regular exchanges of personnel and a flow of communication, but the reality was otherwise. There are no records of meetings or correspondence or any other documentation between the Resident Manager of Goldenbridge and the Superior in Carysfort. In their Opening Statement of 15th March 2005, the Sisters of Mercy made the following remark in respect of the reporting structure that operated between the Mother House and the Goldenbridge branch house at that time: Reporting relationships were not very formal and probably depended very much on the personalities and expectations of the Superior in Carysfort and the local superior or resident manager in Goldenbridge. 6.16 The result was that Goldenbridge was, for a different reason, left in much the same isolated situation as that which prevailed in smaller Communities of the Sisters of Mercy. The Community in Dundalk, for example, would not have expected any Visitation, inspection or supervision by any other Sister serving as a Sister of Mercy. A nun in Dundalk did not have any prospect or possibility of being transferred. By joining that Community, she became a member of a stand-alone Congregation and, unless she resigned or was dismissed, she would remain there during her entire lifetime. This immobility came about by necessity in smaller convents. Goldenbridge, despite its proximity to Carysfort and other houses, remained in relative isolation. Nuns there also served for very long terms in the one post and were left to carry on their work without outside interference or inspection. A consequence of the autonomous convent system was that there was a smaller pool of Sisters available for work in an industrial school. Thus, Sr Margaret Casey, Provincial Leader of the Western Province, in her evidence at the Phase I hearing in respect of Newtownforbes, said: The Sisters also would have been drawn from the small local pool of the Sisters in the convent there in Newtownforbes and there was no expert or back up service really available to them.
1
6.14
6.15
6.17
1954 (these Constitutions were revised in 1969, 1972, and 1985).
238
6.18 6.19
This limitation of choice was particularly significant in relation to the position of Resident Manager. In 1953, the Resident Manager of Goldenbridge, Sr Bianca,2 delivered a lecture to a conference on childcare management at Carysfort College, in which she spoke about the role of Resident Manager: The efficient and satisfactory running of every Home depends largely on the person in charge. Experience shows that, where the person in charge is kind but firm; sympathetic but impartial; efficient without being over-bearing; determined but open to suggestion; approachable without being too free; the other members of the staff will take their cue from her, and the result will be content and harmony in the entire Home.
6.20
She stated that a successful Manager should have: ... sufficient skill and judgment to settle each difficulty as it arises; have a sympathetic interest in both children and staff; have a strong personality, without being overbearing or dictatorial, be enthusiastic and enterprising; and above all, she must be strictly impartial.
6.21
These observations echoed what the Cussen Commission had said in its report in 19363 about the importance of the quality of the Manager to the proper care of the children in industrial schools. The smaller the Congregation, the less easy it was to find a person with these necessary skills. In addition, Sisters were less able to secure a change of employment. In her Statement of Intended Evidence to the Committee in respect of Dundalk, Sr Ann-Marie McQuaid, Provincial Leader of the Northern Province, noted: The three Sisters who held these positions during the period under review remained in this position for most of their lives and right into old age.
6.22 6.23
6.24
The Mother Superior of the Community was generally the Resident Manager of the Industrial School, and so had complete control over the funding and administrative duties of the School, in particular its relationship with the Department of Education. However, she had little to do with the day-to-day running of the School, which was vested in the Sister in Charge who acted as de facto Manager. The rationale for this division of responsibility seems to lie in the hierarchical organisation of the Sisters. The Mother Superior was in charge of the convent and, in that capacity, she was in charge of every activity carried out by the nuns of her convent, including the Industrial School. The number of Sisters available for work in an industrial school depended on the size of the Community. During the Emergence hearings, Sr Breege ONeill discussed staffing levels: I think that remained constant in the years between 1935 and 1965. In each of our industrial schools there would have been between 100 and 150 children in the schools. There would have been two or three Sisters, one of whom would have been the resident manager, and maybe another one who would have been working full-time in the school or in some other area. They may have had one or two lay staff ... The people with responsibility for the care of the children would have been four or five people. They would have been on duty seven days a week, 24 hours a day. I know of Sisters who told me of having six little cots around her bed at night of children who needed feeding during the night. That would have been a practice. So they were caring for the children over the whole course of the day.
2 3
6.25
This is a pseudonym. The Commission of Inquiry into the Reformatory and Industrial School System, which was required to report to the Minister for Education on the Reformatory and Industrial School System, began its work in 1934, and furnished a report to the Minister in 1936. It was under the Chairmanship of District Justice Cussen.
239
6.26
She was asked how the staffing level of four staff to about 120 residents evolved. She replied, My understanding was that that was probably informed by the understanding of the time. Her comments were borne out by the evidence. In Goldenbridge, there were usually only two Sisters involved in the Industrial School: the Sister in Charge and the Assistant Sister. The other nuns from the convent would assist in particular activities, but did not play a large role in the dayto-day operation of the School. In Cappoquin, up to four Sisters worked full-time in the Industrial School and, in Newtownforbes, only two Sisters worked full-time in the School from the mid-1940s to the 1960s. In Dundalk, two Sisters worked full-time in the School and were assisted by a third Sister when numbers were high. Industrial schools run by the Sisters of Mercy were heavily reliant on assistance from senior girls and lay staff. Former pupils of the Industrial School were retained after their periods of detention, and they carried out various supervisory duties, either in a paid or unpaid capacity. In Goldenbridge, some of these girls were offered employment in the School only because they were unable to work outside the convent. The lack of formal training for Sisters working in industrial schools was a significant feature of the evidence of Sisters and former Sisters. In Goldenbridge, when asked whether she had received any training in childcare, Sr Alida4 said None whatsoever. I think you had to use your own head. She added: Well I suppose doing my teacher training I did my share of child psychology. I wouldn't say that would have qualified me for the work I undertook in Goldenbridge. I had no idea that such a place as Goldenbridge existed when I was training up or when I was coming out to it either.
6.27
6.28
6.29
6.30
Other Sisters who worked in the School expressed similar sentiments. Sr Gianna5 said that she had received no training whatsoever, although she thought that her previous work with children in the Girl Guides might have been a factor in her being sent to Goldenbridge. In her evidence at the Phase I hearing in the Newtownforbes investigation, Sr Margaret Casey stated: The Sisters themselves would not, as I said earlier, have had any kind of formal training in childcare, actually such training didn't exist until the 70s. So most of the Sisters there would have had a background in secondary education before they entered. Subsequently they would have received some training, some of them, obviously the primary school teachers would have qualified as primary school teachers. Some of the Sisters working in the Industrial School did diplomas and certificates to Ceidi and Lough Gill and home economics and housewifery, that area. I know that one of the Sisters in 1953 attended an institutional management course that was run in Carysfort. She subsequently was fulltime working in the Industrial School. One Sister also trained as a children's nurse.
6.31
In the Clifden hearings, Sr Olivia6 told the Committee that the only training that she ever received was in 1974, 1975. We did an in service course in Dublin and we would go up every Friday evening and come down Saturday evening. The Congregation identified lack of training as one of the features of the industrial school system which contributed to the suffering of children in their care, but attempted to mitigate this by pointing out that there was no course in childcare training in Ireland until the 1970s. They also noted that most of the individual Sisters of Mercy who worked in the industrial schools run by the
4 5 6
6.32
240
Congregation had a secondary school education, and others went on to train as nurses, primary school teachers or secondary school teachers. 6.33 In the Phase I hearing into Goldenbridge, Sr Helena ODonoghue, Provincial Leader of the South Central Province, said: Each of the five Sisters who acted as Sisters in charge and involved in the Industrial School were professionally trained teachers at Carysfort Training College, which was a significant feature in the Dublin Mercy Community. Sr Bianca also had qualifications and certifications in domestic economy, cookery, needlework and household management. These Sisters also were supported by other Sisters as I have said, but who might not necessarily have any had particular training. Those who worked in the kitchen were qualified cooks and others would have taken short courses in household management. 6.34 In her 1953 lecture on childcare management mentioned above, the Resident Manager of Goldenbridge, Sr Bianca, made important points about the needs of children in care. She said that children coming from underprivileged backgrounds should be met with sympathy and gentleness. Drastic remedies for head lice, such as cutting off hair, should not be necessary, particularly when there were remedies on the market at a very reasonable price. Children should be divided into small groups, including at meal times, to promote an intimate family atmosphere. She added that formal marshalling and regimentation must be avoided. Whilst there should be an emphasis on domestic training, there was no reason why girls should not follow a commercial or other career path if they had the necessary talent. She proposed that every child should help with small jobs and chores about the home. They should be encouraged to be creative, and arts and crafts teachers deployed. Dressing the children uniformly should be discouraged. There was no reason why they could not be sensibly and attractively dressed. She advised that children should be allowed a considerable amount of supervised freedom. They should be allowed to go to the local shop, and older girls permitted to go into town on the bus to run errands. In addition, she considered that a large playground and hall were a necessity. A field for sports should be made available. Senior girls should have their own sitting room. She felt that music should be encouraged, both playing instruments and singing as well as listening to music on the radio. Dancing should be also encouraged. Caring for pets was another useful occupation for children. Sr Bianca also felt that the Manager should possess skill and judgement, have a strong personality, without being overbearing or dictatorial ... and above all, she must be strictly impartial. Furthermore, those charged with the care of such children should have a keen interest in their work and possess the requisite experience and knowledge of psychology. The fact that Sr Bianca was asked to deliver the lecture is evidence that she was highly regarded as a childcare expert, and the lecture expressed an enlightened and progressive view of childcare in the 1950s. Sr Bianca knew how a good institution should be run, and her lecture provides a standard against which Goldenbridge and other Sisters of Mercy industrial schools may be judged. Moreover, these progressive views demonstrated the principles that could have been inculcated in generations of carers, if training had been provided, with potentially dramatic consequences for children in care. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 241
6.35
6.36
6.37
6.38
6.39
Impact of vows on institutional care

6.40 In May 2006, the Sisters of Mercy submitted a document entitled The Influence of Religious Values and/or Religious Life of the Sisters of Mercy on the Management of Industrial Schools and on Aspects of the Care of the Children. In this document, the Sisters explored the ways in which their religious vows affected the care they gave to children in their institutions, and it arose out of testimony at the oral hearings, particularly relating to the way in which individual Sisters interacted with the hierarchy in the Congregation and with the children in care. The Congregation accepted that these religious values and ways of life must have influenced the way in which the schools were run. Sisters of Mercy take the three vows common to most religious communities of poverty, chastity and obedience and they also take a fourth: to serve the poor, sick, and uneducated. In addition to these formal obligations, other aspects of religious life that were highly valued included prayer, routine, simplicity, silence and work. The Congregation gave examples of how these religious values might have had a negative impact on the way industrial schools were run:
6.41
6.42
The strict routine of prayer followed by Sisters meant that during regular identifiable periods, the children were exclusively in the care of lay staff and it also had the consequence of a regime of strict religious observance being imposed on the children. The importance of routine also manifested itself in everyday activities with Sisters following a strict daily routine. The daily routine of adherence to times for prayer, meals, work or recreation was sacrosanct. Sisters would have expected the children to follow the same routine, with early rising, Mass, chores, special times for meals and recreation and the Congregation accepted that this could have been experienced as harsh and demanding. The emphasis on silence as a means of focusing attention on God and the things of God had a significant impact on the manner in which individual Sisters interacted with each other and with the children. This could have had the effect of reducing the communication of information about children between Sisters, or Sisters and staff, to a strictly need to know basis. Work played a large role in religious observance: Working hard was viewed as generous, obedient and self-giving. The underpinning theology of the time held that grace would supply for what nature failed to offer. It was not expected or customary that a Sister would complain in any way about the task to which she had been assigned. To do so would be seen as not merely a sign of personal failing, but of inability to cope with the challenges of religious life.
6.43
The Congregation stated: The negative aspect was, perhaps, that leisure activities were circumscribed and everyone was caught up in a system where rest, unstructured relaxation and variety were seen as luxuries rather than necessities.
6.44
It also said that A life of simplicity and sometimes frugality was valued as an outward expression of the vow of Poverty. All Sisters pooled their salaries, and they were directed in the main towards the works of mercy engaged in by the Sisters. Many Sisters spoke in evidence about the expectation that they would not show affection to the children in care. The Congregation said: The question of the reluctance to show any physical affection for the children found its roots in a positive understanding of caring for all children equally and of not favouring one child over the other. 242 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
6.45
6.46
This desire to treat all equally might have led to children seeing the Sisters as aloof or uncaring, but it would be: ... a grave distortion to see the absence of the overt expression of physical affection for the children as some kind of innate personal failing on the part of each Sister, related in some obscure way, to her choice of a life of celibacy rather than a choice of marriage and motherhood.
6.47 6.48
Many Sisters spoke about the impact of the vow of obedience. Chapter VII of the 1926 edition of the Rule and Constitutions dealt with the vow of obedience. It provided: 28. The Sisters are always to bear in mind, that by the Vow of Obedience they have forever renounced their own will, and resigned it to the direction of their Superiors. They are to obey the Mother Superior, as holding her authority from God, rather through love than from servile fear. They shall love and respect her as their mother. Without her permission they shall not perform public penances. 29. They are to execute, without hesitation, all the directions of the Mother Superior; whether in matters of great or little moment, agreeable or disagreeable. They shall never murmur, but with humility and spiritual joy carry the sweet yoke of Jesus Christ. They shall not absent themselves from the Common Exercises without her leave, except in a case of pressing urgency and if they cannot then have access to her, they shall make known to her the reason of their absence at the earliest opportunity. They shall obey the call of the bell as the voice of God.
6.49
Sr Margaret Casey discussed the operation of the vow of Obedience during the Phase III hearing into Newtownforbes: I suppose back in those years the Sister would have been assigned to a job under obedience and that obviously would have impacted on the Institution and her role in it, because sometimes then it meant, and this would have been borne out in the Industrial School, that they could have ended up in a particular Ministry as, say, some of the Resident Managers, that they were there for quite a long time, 30 years and more. But it would have been true, as well, that out of the obedience that it wouldn't have been the accepted or the norm for somebody to complain to the person in authority about how the place was being run, because to do so would have been seen not merely as a kind of personal failing but it would also have shown that in some way that their inability to cope with the challenges of religious life.
6.50
One Sister expressed her dissatisfaction with the hierarchical nature of Newtownforbes. She said that the junior Sisters had no say in the Community. It was ruled, it was governed from the top, just a select few, that's all, and the junior Sisters were required to follow blindly and dumbly. She was unhappy with this situation because the people who were governing the Industrial School, the Mother Superior, the Mother Assistant, the Bursar and the Novice Mistress, had little to do with the Industrial School. They were the elite. You had the elite and you had the everyday folk. This management structure inhibited her ability to speak out about the deficiencies she saw around her.
The Cussen Report

6.51 When the Cussen Report was published in 1936, the Sisters of Mercy had responsibility for 26 industrial schools, 22 of them for girls, three for junior boys, and one was a mixed school for junior boys and girls. The leading position held by the Congregation in the Irish industrial school system is illustrated by comparison with the Christian Brothers, who had six industrial schools, the Sisters CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 243
of the Good Shepherd and the Sisters of Charity who each had five schools, the Presentation Sisters who had two schools, and the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of Refuge and the Sisters of St Louis who had one each. 6.52 Despite their importance in the industrial school system, the Sisters of Mercy were not consulted by the Cussen Commission in the course of its work. Unlike the Christian Brothers or the Oblate Fathers, they were not issued a special invitation by the Commission to give evidence; and the absence of any member of the Congregation from the list of witnesses at Appendix A of the Report implies that they did not respond to the advertisement of the Commission requesting assistance in its work. It is not known why such a large and influential body in this area did not make a submission to the Cussen Commission. Although there was no overall authority for the Congregation at that time, the Sisters of Mercy had in Carysfort a teacher training college that was attended by Sisters of Mercy from all over Ireland. The Sisters of Mercy could, accordingly, have made a contribution to the work of the Commission.
6.53
Impact of Medical Inspector

6.54 The Cussen Report made a number of important recommendations, one of which was the appointment of a Medical and General Inspector for Industrial Schools by the Department of Education. Dr Anna McCabe was appointed in 1936, and was extremely critical of the conditions she found in the Sisters of Mercy schools. A 1944 Department of Education memorandum commented on Dr McCabes report on Cappoquin Industrial School, and condemned the conditions in the nuns schools generally: This is another school run by the Sisters of Mercy which has a long record of semistarvation. Dr. McCabe's report following her inspection last November disclosed such an appalling state of affairs that we went over the head of the resident manager and issued an ultimatum to the Manager. Dr. McCabe's latest report shows how far we have got. Out of 75 boys, 61 are under the normal weight for their age-height groups by from 3 lbs. to 21 lbs. The butter ration is exactly the same as it was in November, 1943 7 lbs. (At 6 ozs. per head it should be 28 lbs.) The boys continue to look pinched, wizened and wretched and look lamentably different from normal children. It is abundantly clear that the only hope of the required improvement lies in drastic action. The first and most obvious step is the removal of the present resident manager. She is 63 and 5/12 years of age and has held office uninterruptedly since June, 1927. Dr. McCabe informs me that she is a ruthless domineering person who resents any criticism and challenges advice. Her explanation of the children's failure to gain weight their "activity" rival Marie Antoinette's "why don't they eat cake?" She has bedded down long since into a groove out of which she cannot be shifted by some annual criticism, and it seems clear that she holds the manager in the hollow of her hand. I can see no hope of improvement while she continues in office. The state of affairs existing in this school is so deplorable and indefensible that I think further strong action is required. I suggest that payment of the state grant be suspended for three months and, that the manager be informed that there will be a special inspection say, early next December. If that inspection shows that the underfeeding has ceased and that the weights generally are on the increase and tending towards normality, payment will be resumed. If not, consideration must be given to the withdrawal of the certificate. I might mention that Dr. McCabe's account of the nuns' schools generally is most alarming. Underfeeding is widespread. In fact, she tells me that in only one school Kinsale is she completely satisfied with the diet. The general rule is what she describes 244 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
6.55
as a bare "maintenance diet" sufficient to keep children from losing weight but not enough to enable them to put on weight at anything approaching the normal rate. A third junior boys' school run by the Sisters of Mercy Passage West is in the same category as Rathdrum and Cappoquin, and she proposes to visit it again shortly. She is strongly of opinion that we must hit the schools in their purses by threatening to stop grants and stopping them if necessary in one or two of the worst cases If we are to effect an improvement. 6.56 Dr McCabe made some severe criticisms of individual schools. For example, in relation to Dundalk in 1946, she stated: ... if these people are going to have a school they must look after the children otherwise I will have to recommend that they are not fit to look after children and have them transferred elsewhere. 6.57 Similarly, in respect of Newtownforbes, she was highly critical of the management of the School. In 1940, she had noticed that there was bruising on many of the bodies of the girls in the infirmary. In her letter of 12th February 1940, to the Reverend Mother of the School, she stated: ... I was not satisfied in finding so many of the girls in the Infirmary suffering from bruises on their bodies. I wish particularly to draw attention to the latter as under no circumstances can the Department tolerate treatment of this nature and you being responsible for the care of these children will have some difficulty in avoiding censure. 6.58 6.59 She was also highly critical of the general conditions in the School. Although not directly alluded to by Dr McCabe, the situation in Goldenbridge was so bad that the School had to be closed down for two weeks in 1942. What emerged was a situation of serious neglect which had been allowed to develop in the late 1930s and into the 1940s. Dr McCabes comments in the Departmental memorandum quoted above would indicate that this was much more widespread than the schools looked at in detail by the Investigation Committee. Dr McCabe brought about considerable changes to those schools run by the Sisters of Mercy, and often in the face of opposition and obduracy on the part of the Sisters. The Sisters have acknowledged the criticisms of individual schools, but have not addressed the question of why these schools were so uniformly bad in the standard of physical care provided. Although the Sisters have accepted that the religious vows they took had an impact on the way in which they cared for children in institutions, they do not explain the level of neglect that was found in the 1940s.
6.60
6.61
Possibility of change
6.62 The Congregations Submission dealt with their overall role in residential childcare. They stated: In conjunction with major changes in Religious Life heralded by Vatican II, in the later 1960s the Kennedy Report ushered in a new era of child-care. The new model of childcare was the group home. It is, we submit, important to recognise that the Sisters of Mercy were also at the heart of this transition from institutional care to group home. It would be an unfair caricature to depict the Sisters as only being involved in the deposed regime of institutional child-care, and absent from the regime of group homes. On the contrary, the Sisters of Mercy were at the heart of this process of change. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 245
6.63
The Congregation went on to say: It is unlikely that the problems posed by extreme poverty and family dysfunction can ever be addressed in a manner that avoids any pain to the child involved. But there is no doubt that the institutional form of child-care caused a great deal of pain to the children involved. The Sisters of Mercy were at the heart of that system and fully recognise their responsibility. However, it is also fair to say that the Sisters of Mercy were among the first to embrace the transition to the new system of group homes.
6.64
By the time of the Kennedy Report in 1970, numbers in the institutions had reduced to such an extent that the old system based on capitation was unworkable. Schools had either to close down or adapt. Change came slowly, and it was not until the mid-1980s that the old institutional care system was fully replaced by the Sisters of Mercy with group homes. In contrast, the Sisters of Charity, who were also engaged in the institutional care of children, recognised the need for change, and attended childcare courses in England in the late 1940s. These courses changed the way the Sisters looked at institutional childcare in Ireland. They recognised that the existing nature of institutional care could not provide for the psychological or emotional needs of vulnerable children. They introduced the group home system to St Josephs, Kilkenny between 1951 and 1954. The success of this innovation was recognised almost immediately by Dr Anna McCabe, who saw that the children were happier in the new system. Had the Sisters of Mercy seen the fundamental flaws in the system of childcare operated by them in the late 1940s, and introduced change accordingly, much of the abuse recounted to the Investigation Committee might not have taken place. As the Sisters have stated: It is significant that there have been few complaints about the group homes run by the Sisters of Mercy.
6.65
6.66
6.67
The extent of the Congregations involvement in residential care was reflected in the number of complaints received by the Investigation Committee from former residents of their institutions. The Investigation Committee conducted full investigative hearings into five of the largest institutions, namely Goldenbridge, Newtownforbes, Clifden, Cappoquin and Dundalk. Every witness who wished to participate in the investigation into these industrial schools was invited to do so. In respect of other schools, each complainant was invited for interview.
Name Open Certification Original number of complainants 77 6 Invited for hearing 52 6 Attended hearing 43 5
St Vincents, Goldenbridge Lady of Succour, Newtownforbes St Josephs, Clifden St Michaels, Cappoquin St Josephs, Dundalk
18801983 18691969
185 145
18721983 18771999 18811983
140 75 100
33 26 21
20 17 10
10 9 3
246
Response to allegations of abuse

6.68 During the Investigation Committees Emergence hearings, Sr Breege ONeill, then Congregation Leader of the Sisters of Mercy, outlined the response of the Congregation to the issue of child abuse in Ireland. The emergence of widespread allegations of abuse in the early 1990s coincided with the centralisation or amalgamation of the Congregation. The Congregation had just formed at national level in 1994, and the intermediate provincial structures had not yet been established. This made it difficult, she said, for the Congregation to determine precisely what had happened. Sr ONeill stated: I suppose one of the reasons I outlined our structure in the beginning was because when the allegations that concerned our congregation became known to us in the mid 90s we did not have central archives. We had just amalgamated at national level in 1994 and our intermediate structures, which were the provincial structures, were not in place. So one of the difficulties for us in responding to the allegations at the beginning was that the information we needed to get the picture ourselves of just what happened in the institutions and what was known of life there, that information was spread around the country. 6.70 The records of institutions that had closed in the 1960s had been transferred to local convents, some of which were autonomous and others were branch houses of larger convents. Some records had been transferred to the mother house of the newly formed Diocesan Congregations. In 1996, the Sisters decided to collect what records there were and assemble them in a central archive. To that end, they employed a professional archivist and established the archive at the Congregations premises in Baggot Street. The records which had survived the closure of some of the schools and convents, and the process of amalgamation, were in some areas quite sparse. This made it difficult for the Leadership to develop an awareness of what had happened or to respond to the increasing number of requests for information from former residents of institutions run by the Congregation. Sr ONeill stated that the records were: as complete as we have been able to find of record of any institution for which we were responsible as far as back as we have been able to find records for. So everything from attics to whatever little pieces of paper were available, we have done an immense trawl of every house to ensure that in some way the whole picture is contained in one place. 6.71 The records consist of: Any records that were kept in any industrial school and I think they cover things like admission registers I have to make a note of these so I will remember them - discharge books, books of incidental returns, manager's diaries, medical officer reports, punishment books, maintenance books. Any correspondence that has survived from the institutions. Medical history forms, general case notes, birth certificates, detention orders. They vary. I am not saying that we have all of that information for any one institution, but the archives comprise all of that information in relation to at least some of the institutions and in varying degrees in relation to them all ... Depending on when the industrial school in a particular locality closed and what happened to the building, or even what happened to the convent building in the subsequent years to the 90s also determined what information has survived. 6.72 The Sisters of Mercy became aware of allegations of abuse in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Sr ONeill stated: It was at that time that we became aware of the pain that some people who had been in our institutions were still carrying in their adult life as a result of their time there. That we CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 247
6.69
became aware of mainly through the public domain. Through books that had been published. I refer to the book "The God Squad" in the late 80s and "You May Talk Now" by Mary Phil Drennan. They were people whose stories related to institutions that were run by our Congregation. 6.73 Ms Christine Buckley had made serious allegations of abuse arising out of her time in Goldenbridge on the Gay Byrne radio programme on 8th November 1992, but it was the Dear Daughter programme in February 1996 that represented a turning point for the Congregation. Although earlier books had been published and interviews broadcast, they were relevant only to particular convents or Diocesan Congregations, whereas the Dear Daughter programme was the first to confront the Congregation as a whole: It actually was the Dear Daughter programme in 1996. Because earlier those two books would have probably come to the attention of the particular convent connected to the orphanage in which their experiences were recounted but in 1996 we had come together as a Congregation and the impact of the Dear Daughter programme on us is hard to describe really because the impact of the story and of the coverage in the media following that, it was like a tidal wave that came over us for which we were not prepared either structurally or in terms of how we understood the past at that time. 6.74 The programme had an enormous impact on the way that the Congregation viewed itself: The impact was enormous on the Congregation. One of the reasons was because we had held a particular picture ourselves of our involvement in the care of children and that particular programme certainly shattered all of that. We had within the Congregation many, many Sisters who had no experience of industrial schools. They wouldn't have ever been attached to a convent where there was an industrial school. They were never involved in them themselves. They wouldn't have them in their memory. Suddenly there were all of these allegations coming to us and we really didn't know how to deal with them at the time. I think we went through the shock and denial and that whole sense of could this be true ... We didn't have a base of knowledge ourselves to check it out against. So our initial response was that kind of dismay. Huge hurt within the Congregation for the people who were coming forward with their stories. All of that had a huge impact on the morale of the Congregation. I say that because it was in an effort to try to create some understanding of that, that we engaged in the process I spoke about earlier, that kind of self-reflection process around how could this have happened? How did we contribute to creating situations where this could have happened? It was a very painful time. Then we had Sisters within the Congregation who were extremely pained by somehow now seeing their life's work being cast in a totally different light. These would be the very elderly Sisters. That was very difficult for them. 6.75 Sr ONeill stated that there was enormous pressure on the Leadership Team at the time: ... it was the tension of holding all of those pieces and trying to support everybody involved at that time. I am talking particularly in the years '96, '97, '98. 6.76 The Sisters of Mercy were aware of Dear Daughter before it was aired. When it was being made, the Congregation commissioned Mr Gerard Crowley, a childcare specialist, to carry out an investigation into Goldenbridge Industrial School, in an effort to provide the Congregation with an independent view of what happened there, and to give the Congregation some assistance in deciding how to respond to the allegations that were being made. Mr Crowleys report is considered in detail in the chapter on Goldenbridge: for present purposes, it is sufficient to note that it reached a preliminary view that the allegations were broadly credible. In her evidence to the Investigation Committee in the Phase I hearing into Goldenbridge, Sr Helena ODonoghue stated: 248 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
The approach gave us, if you like, some understanding initially of how we might view our situation at the time and we out of that made our apology. We took the main conclusions from it that the regime was harsh and insensitive to the needs of children, that it was inadequate and did not meet their basic needs. 6.77 Following Dear Daughter, the Sisters announced the setting-up of a helpline and a counselling service. Also, in an effort to build up its level of understanding, the Leadership met with every Sister in Ireland who had worked in childcare. It also met with every Community which had had an industrial school attached to it in the past: We learnt a number of things. We learnt that their understanding of their time spent in childcare in these industrial schools, their understanding was that they had done well under very difficult circumstances ... They would acknowledge that the atmosphere in those institutions was certainly not conducive or helpful to addressing the emotional needs of children. They talked about the lack of funding. They talked about the lack of resources in terms of help. They talked about an ... institutional sort of daily set up that wasn't conducive to either attending to children's individual emotional needs ... Or to developing to the degree that they would now want with the individuality of children. They would recognise there was harshness ... But they wouldn't accept the more serious allegations that have been made against them. 6.78 Sr Breege ONeill stated that the relationship that individual Sisters had with former residents might have clouded their view or led to a rose-tinted picture of what life was like in the industrial schools: ... what complicates the whole piece for us is that those Sisters continued to have ongoing contact and friendly relationships with many who were in our institutions and who to this day come back and they visit. They stay for weekends in the summertime in those Communities. So in some way that sort of tradition maybe informed our picture of what we thought the relationship was. People would attend weddings and christenings of children and all of that, and letters would be exchanged. I suppose one of the things we learnt from going around talking to the Sisters was the huge affection they have for those who were children in the institutions and with whom they have that ongoing contact. We try to hold that side by side with the huge pain that many people who were in our institutions speak about. That has been a real dilemma and tension point for us as a Congregation. 6.79 In addition to these interviews, the Congregation: ... engaged ... in a very intense process of reflection throughout the whole Congregation. Just trying to understand what structures of ours brought about a situation where the stories that were emerging in the 90s could have happened. We have enlisted the help of historians and psychologist, theologians to help us with that reflection. To try to understand the context of the time, but also our own structures and anything within those that might have led to that. 6.80 After the broadcast of Dear Daughter, the Sisters of Mercy issued their first public apology, in February 1996. This stated: In the light of recent revelations regarding the mistreatment of children in our institutions we the Mercy Sisters wish to take this opportunity to sincerely and unreservedly express our deep regret to those men and women who at any time or place in our care were hurt or harshly treated. The fact that most complaints relate to many years ago is not offered as an excuse. As a Congregation we fully acknowledge our failures and ask for forgiveness. Aware of the painful and lasting effect of such experiences we would like to hear from those who have suffered and we are putting in place an independent and confidential help line. This help line will be staffed by competent and professional counsellors who will CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 249
listen sympathetically and who will be in the position to offer further help if required. In this way we would hope to redress the pain insofar as that is possible so that those who have suffered might experience some peace, healing and dignity. Life in Ireland in the 40s and 50s was in general harsh for many people. This was reflected in orphanages, which were under funded, under staffed and under resourced. It was in this climate that many Sisters gave years of generous service to the education and care of children. However, we made mistakes and irrespective of the passage of time as a Congregation we now openly acknowledge our failures and ask for forgiveness. Regretfully we cannot change the past. As we continue our work of caring and education today we will constantly review and monitor our procedures, our personnel and our facilities. Working in close cooperation with other voluntary and statutory agencies we are committed to doing all in our power to ensure that people in our care have a protective and supportive environment. We were founded to alleviate pain, want and misery. We have tried to do this through our work in health care, education, child care, social and pastoral work. Despite our evident failures which we deeply regret we are committed to continuing that work in partnership with many others in the years ahead. 6.81 Sr ONeill described the Congregations thinking and objective in publishing that apology as follows: Our hope was that it would ease the pain and trauma of the many people who had been former residents in our institutions, and that it might help to restore the relationship between them and the congregation. Because at that early stage the breaking of that relationship was hugely painful for the Sisters who worked in the industrial schools and for the wider Congregation. We thought that if people could hear that we were truly sorry that might help to restore the relationship. That was the intention at the time. 6.82 However, the Sisters concluded that the apology was not successful: I don't think it was successful. Because as time went on we learnt that people heard that apology as conditional. They heard it as incomplete. It didn't seem to have the intent that we had thought it would. Or what we had hoped would happen didn't happen at that time as a result of that apology. In some ways I think people who heard it as conditional were more hurt by that sense that we were not listening to them in the present. 6.83 The Sisters considered that the initiation of legal proceedings against the Congregation altered the way that they sought to engage with former residents: Shortly after that began the issuing of litigation. Many litigation cases against us as a Congregation by former residents. That sort of changed the relationship and put its own sort of limitations on our ability to continue to try to connect with our former residents. We respected the right of people to take court proceedings against us and we did not want to influence them in any way in doing that. 6.84 The Congregation also highlighted other tensions: One tension has been, the one I mentioned earlier, where we have Sisters who would acknowledge some but not all of the allegations against them, and who because of the way the Commission was set up would be or could be named as abusers at its conclusion we had a responsibility to provide those Sisters with all of the legal and other supports they needed, and to have testimonies tested. That was also a tension for us, because all of those processes in some way were creating more of a wedge in the relationship between us and them. That is how it was for us. 250 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
6.85
The Congregation decided to publish a second apology, which it did on 5th May 2004. Sr ONeill informed the Committee why it decided to do this: When Justice Laffoy resigned and the Commission went into abeyance for some time and we began to think that the Commission was going to probably go on for a number of years, and certainly the High Court litigation cases would go on for years and we just at that point said we have got to do something to try in the short term to reach out to the people whose lives were still damaged by their experiences and see if there was any way we could begin to build a process of reconciliation. That was the reason we issued the second apology. Because we began with one to one contact with individual former residents or with representatives of former residents groups and the feedback was that apology was just so unhelpful to them, that original one. They would have told us that their ability to get on with their lives was in some way blocked by our inability to hear them. When that awareness became clear to us we decided to one more time and this time to try to find the words that would reflect our desire to indicate that that apology was unconditional and unreserved. That was the second apology we issued with that intent.
6.86
The second apology was as follows: On behalf of the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy we the central leadership team wish to say to all those who as children lived in our orphanages and industrial schools we accept unreservedly that many of you who spent your childhoods in orphanages and industrial schools run by our congregation were hurt and damaged while in our care. We believe that you suffered physical and emotional trauma. We have in the past publicly apologised to you. We know that you heard our apology then as conditional and less than complete. Now without reservation we apologise unconditionally to each one of you for the suffering we have caused. We express our heartfelt sorrow and ask your forgiveness. We ask forgiveness for our failure to care for you and to protect you in the past, and for our failure to hear you in the present. We are distressed by our failures. We have been earnestly searching to find a way to bring about healing and we need your help to do this. We recognise that this statement may be considered too little too late. We make it in the hope that it will be a further step in the long process of healing the pain that we as a Congregation have caused. Finally, we failed those Sisters in our Congregation whom we put in the situation of caring for you without adequate supports or resources. For that too we apologise and take responsibility.
6.87
In her evidence on behalf of the Congregation at the commencement of the hearings into Goldenbridge, Sr Helena ODonoghue discussed the negative aspects of the industrial school system and of Goldenbridge in particular. She stated: The most basic features of the industrial school illustrate how children almost inevitably suffered in this system. The large size of the Institution and the number of children contained in it compared with small group units that we have today. Goldenbridge housed up to 185 children at any one time during the period under review. The size gave little prospect that the replication of love and nurture of family could occur within its walls. Nowadays, children taken into residential care live in homes of groups of six to eight at the maximum. A second basic feature was really the ratio of staff to children within the Institution and as far as we can ascertain there appears to have been approximately one member of staff, and I include that to be either a teacher or a carer, one member of staff to about 30 or more children around the clock. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 251
Thirdly, the absence of training for sisters and lay staff in the sense of what now would be called childcare training. Some Sisters, particularly those in charge, were trained as teachers; however, no formal childcare training had existed in Ireland until the late 60s and early 70s. Then the capitation system of funding, together with the level of funding, led to difficult financial constraints and choices. 6.88 She also accepted that the institutional nature of the residential setting led, in turn, to other undesirable conditions of daily life. She described these as follows: The regimental nature of the Institution where there was restriction on freedom of movement well beyond school hours, where the lack of privacy inherent in institutional life was something, particularly in the early years, which would have been unhappy. The emphasis on conformity rather than on creativity and choice, and the very limited opportunities of forming personal one to one adult/child relationships, and I suppose in particular the reliance on corporal punishment as a feature in the maintenance of discipline and good order. 6.89 She also mentioned: A failure to properly understand the level of trauma being suffered by each children as a result of being placed in the School and separated from family, sometimes in circumstances where this placement followed a death of a parent. A failure to properly respond to the individual emotional needs of the children in a school, including how lonely and frightened they must have been in being taken from family and placed in a large institution with children of all ages. A failure to recognise the special emotional and educational needs of children who had come from troubled backgrounds. A failure to keep children informed about their families and family events, such as births, marriages, and deaths. A failure to assess the individual needs of each child, either on admission or on an ongoing basis. A failure to meet the comprehensive educational needs of children and the very inadequacy of the educational process itself relative to their needs. 6.90 She pointed out that these failures were common to all industrial schools, but accepted that: It does raise, if you like, a deep question for us as a Congregation and Sisters of Mercy just that we as agents of the State worked through this system and perhaps were not alert to the ways in which the failures contributed to the very real pain that has been experienced by children who were in industrial schools. 6.91 These further concessions as to the negative aspects of institutional life are relevant in the investigations into the different schools, not only those run by the Sisters of Mercy. They are also material to the assessment of the system as a whole. The question has to be considered whether, and to what extent, detention in an industrial school meant that a child was doomed to suffer illtreatment or neglect amounting to abuse of some kind. Whatever the answers to those questions, it does seem that Sr Biancas lecture in 1953 touched on many of the issues identified by the Sisters in their list of negative features, and contained advice on how to remedy them. At least some of the negative features mentioned could have been dealt with by the approach proposed by Sr Bianca, which stressed the need for individual care and sympathetic treatment. The same can be said about the comments and recommendations made by the Cussen Commission. 252 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
6.92
Speaking for the Congregation on the more specific issue of whether abuse occurred in their schools, Sr Breege ONeill in her evidence during the Emergence hearings said that individual Sisters wouldn't accept the more serious allegations that have been made against them. Sr Breege stated that the records available to the Congregation did not provide any evidence of ongoing systematic physical ... abuse of children. In her evidence at the commencement of the Goldenbridge investigation (Phase I), Sr Helena ODonoghue was asked what her position was in relation to allegations of physical abuse. She stated: It will be a matter for the Commission to really in some way examine elements of that nature which at this distance we are not in a position to be able to say definitively that they happened or didn't happen. What we will be saying is that corporal punishment which was of the very severe and very cruel nature is denied by the Sisters who are accused of it ... Severe beatings are a matter that we would be having a different view on than is shared by many of the complainants and we would be looking to the Commission to determine on something which is very, very difficult to determine, but those who are alive and who are present at the time vehemently deny that they ever used punishment to the degree that was cruel and excessively abusive.
6.93
6.94
6.95
In their Submissions to the Investigation Committee at the conclusion of the private hearings into Goldenbridge, the Sisters of Mercy stated that: Corporal punishment was routine ... But ... we say that there has not been established that there was: (a) Serious or extreme violence, whether leading to childrens deaths or not; (b) Daily unjustified physical abuse; ...
6.96
During her evidence to the Committee at the Phase III hearing into Goldenbridge, Sr ODonoghue stated: At the Phase I hearing I said very clearly that we were not in a position to accept as factually correct the allegations of serious physical abuse or injury to any child. And that would cover those points.
6.97
She continued that, having attended all of the private hearings, she would be of the same view: Yes, we would, following the hearings we would be of the same view.
6.98
Having given that evidence, Sr ODonoghue was asked why the Sisters had apologised. She replied: I think that, perhaps, an examination of the apology, both apologies, may be revealing in some way. I think that we have always acknowledged that we recognise that children suffered pain and hurt while in our institutions. We know that those institutions, as any other institutions, were systems. We regret deeply that suffering continued for the children through the years that they were there. We deeply do feel that and want in some way to both acknowledge and to work, as I have already said, for some kind of recovery. Where specific allegations of a serious nature have been made, the apology couldn't, until these matters would be completed, specify what the outcome of specific allegations were. In relation to Goldenbridge, our conviction is that, like anywhere else, children would have suffered in Goldenbridge pain and hurt one way or another that was not adverted to. At the same time we have seen and believe that there is ample evidence to say that the Institution was a reasonably effective and caring institution, according to the standards of the time. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 253
6.99
Sr ODonoghue was referred to the portion of the apology which dealt with hurt and damage, and she was asked what caused the children hurt or damage. She replied: I believe that I couldn't summarise that in a sentence, it is a very complex situation. But there were large numbers, there was lack of understanding, there was a regimental way of life, there was corporal punishment, and factors like that which would have been unfriendly, to put it at its mildest, to the needs of children who were hurt already and who had experienced loss.
6.100
Later she stated: We certainly accept that corporal punishment was part and parcel of the life and was routine. We don't know and can't be definite about it, but that it may not have been reserved to the Manager only. But we do not accept that there was punishment that would have led to any kind of serious, or that was serious and caused injury.
6.101
During the Phase I hearing into Dundalk, Sr Ann-Marie McQuaid was asked to comment generally on the complaints, by former residents of the School, that certain lay members of staff and some nuns did treat them harshly. She stated: I suppose knowing human nature and knowing the length of the period of time and the number of children I think it would be unrealistic to say that there weren't times when a child could have been treated harshly. We deeply regret it if we caused it and we deeply regret it if we didn't notice it.
6.102
She described the Congregations general attitude to the issue of corporal punishment as follows: In hindsight we regret that and that's what I would have had said. We deeply regret it, particularly with children who were vulnerable and who were carrying so much inner pain themselves, it made life more difficult for them.
6.103
During the Phase I hearing into Clifden, Sr Margaret Casey stated: Again I would wish to say that corporal punishment as a practice is something that we would deeply regret and the individual Sisters who administered it would have deep regrets because we do realise and recognise that these children were vulnerable children and in that particular setting it was particularly hard on them because of their vulnerability.
6.104
At the Phase III hearing into Clifden, Sr Casey stated: I am aware that there is again a direct conflict of evidence in the whole area of corporal punishment and in due course the Commission will no doubt adjudicate on that. I do acknowledge and have acknowledged that corporal punishment was a feature in the school life, as it was in most primary schools in the 1960s, and that slapping was the primary form of punishment and I did acknowledge and apologise if children were hurt or damaged by excessive use of corporal punishment while in Clifden.
6.105
During the Phase III hearing into Newtownforbes, Sr Casey stated: I can't say that the children were slapped every morning for bed-wetting because I don't know that, I wasn't there at the time, I did inquire and the Sister who was there is in her 90's and wasn't able to furnish me with any information to help me in an understanding of how often is the punishment or how severe, so I honestly don't know. All I know is that and they would have acknowledged that in the School, that there was punishment for bed-wetting but the extent of it, the regularity of it, the severity of it, I don't know. 254 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
Corporal punishment
Rules and regulations governing corporal punishment
6.106 The extent to which corporal punishment crossed the line into abuse is examined in the chapters dealing with each individual school. What is clear, however, is that the punishment administered in all schools examined by the Committee often exceeded that permitted by the 1933 Rules and Regulations for the Certified Industrial Schools in Ireland. These rules imposed limits on the use of corporal punishment. These limits were more restrictive for girls, particularly those over the age of 15. The issue of discipline was dealt with in Regulation 12: DISCIPLINE. The Manager or his Deputy shall be authorised to punish the Children detained in the School in case of misconduct. All serious misconduct, and the Punishments inflicted for it, shall be entered in a book to be kept for that purpose, which shall be laid before the Inspector when he visits. The Manager must, however, remember that the more closely the School is modelled on a principle of judicious family government the more salutary will be its discipline, and the fewer occasions will arise for resort to punishment. 6.107 Regulation 13 stated that the punishments should consist of: (a) Forfeiture of awards and privileges, or degradation from rank, previously obtained by good conduct. (b) Moderate childish punishment with the hand. (c) Chastisement with the cane, strap, or birch. 6.108 The Regulation went on: Referring to (c) personal chastisement may be inflicted by the Manager, or, in his presence, by an Officer specially authorised by him, and in no case may it be inflicted upon girls over 15 years of age. In the case of girls under 15, it shall not be inflicted except in cases of urgent necessity, each of which must be at once fully reported to the Inspector. Caning on the hand is forbidden. No punishment not mentioned above shall be inflicted. 6.109 The 1946 Rules and Regulations for National Schools applied to the internal national school within the industrial schools: Instructions in regard to the infliction of Corporal Punishment in National Schools. 96. (1) Corporal Punishment should be administered only for grave transgression. In no circumstances should corporal punishment be administered for mere failure at lessons. (2) Only the principal teacher, or such other member of the staff as may be duly authorised by the manager for the purpose, should inflict corporal punishment. (3) Only a light cane or rod may be used for the purpose of corporal punishment which should be inflicted only on the open hand. The boxing of childrens ears, the pulling of their hair or similar ill-treatment is absolutely forbidden and will be visited with severe penalties. (4) No teacher should carry about a cane or other instrument of punishment. (5) Frequent recourse to corporal punishment will be considered by the Minister as indicating bad tone and ineffective discipline. 6.110 This rule did not permit the use of the leather strap in the classroom. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 255
6.111
In addition, the Department of Education issued many circulars and guidelines to Industrial School Managers, indicating that corporal punishment must always be kept within the bounds set down by the Regulations and must never be used excessively. Circular 11/1946 stated: Corporal punishment should be resorted to only where other forms of punishment have been found unsuccessful as a means of correction. It should be administered only for grave transgressions, and in no circumstances for mere failure at school lessons or industrial training.
6.112
The Circular went on to state that punishment should be confined to slapping on the hand with a light cane or strap, and that this should only be administered by the Resident Manager or by a member of staff specifically authorised by him. It added that any form of corporal punishment not in accordance with the terms of this circular is strictly prohibited.
Punishment book
6.113 Only one punishment book from the Sisters of Mercy schools under investigation has been seen by the Committee. The Sisters of Mercy say that the general prevalence of corporal punishment in schools during this period is a factor which should be taken into account when determining whether corporal punishment was excessive or abusive. To an extent they are correct, but the Regulations quoted above were drawn up at a time when corporal punishment was even more prevalent, and yet the authorities recognised the necessity of treating children in residential schools with particular care. The Regulations recognise that children in industrial schools are not only in their school but also in their home, and the standard that is applied is not that of the average national school but that of the average home. The reminder to Managers in the Rules and Regulations that the more closely the School is modelled on a principle of judicious family government the more salutary will be its discipline, and the fewer occasions will arise for resort to punishment is central to the way a residential school should be judged.
6.114
Sexual abuse
6.115 The issue of sexual abuse did not feature as prominently in the evidence in relation to schools run by the Sisters of Mercy as it did in relation to schools run by other religious communities. There were, however, some very serious incidents of sexual abuse perpetrated by lay staff in some schools, which are dealt with in the individual chapters. During the Emergence hearings, Sr Breege ONeill stated that the Congregation became aware of a small number of complaints from the Leaderships discussions with Sisters who were involved in the industrial schools. She stated: I am aware of, I think, three, if not four ... Let me mention that there were three instances where the Resident Manager in a particular institution became aware of a concern that sexual abuse might have occurred in relation to a child. I am talking about an instance in 1960, one in the mid 60s and one in 1969. They were instances where that came to the attention of the Resident Manager and the individual Manager took action herself in relation to each of those three cases that we are aware of. One was in relation to somebody who was visiting the Institution and she barred that person. She mentioned it subsequently to a Department official. The other one was in relation to somebody who was working in a maintenance capacity. Again the Sister had that man removed. The third one was a volunteer coming in and when the Sister heard the complaint she sent for him but he never came back to the Institution. That would be from the recollection of the Sisters themselves ... Some of that, the dismissal, we have found some records that substantiate that. 256 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
6.116
She informed the Committee that she was not aware that there was anything specific done to help any of those children deal with the trauma of sexual abuse: The picture I get is that this was at a time when sexual abuse was not talked about. It came to somebody's attention, they dealt with it. Whether they would have been aware of the impact on the child or whether they would have known how to deal with it I am not sure. But I am not aware that any action was taken.
6.117
During the Phase I hearing into Goldenbridge, Sr Helena ODonoghue provided some detail on the allegations of sexual abuse in that Institution: A small number of complaints have been made of sexual abuse associated with Goldenbridge. However, the only definite knowledge that we have about sexual abuse in the School relates to 1962. At that time a pupil accused a male caretaker or groundsman of assaulting her and she reported the matter to the Resident Manager, Sr Alida, who went to the Garda immediately. The offender was prosecuted and dismissed from employment in the School.
6.118
During the Phase III hearing into Goldenbridge, Sr Helena ODonoghue stated that she was unable to comment as to whether any steps were taken to avoid any indecent touching of children, or improper approaches from individuals visiting the School: I am not in a position to comment. I, myself, was not ever there, but I would believe that would be something that is in the mists of time, that we are not in a position to be clear on.
6.119
She also accepted that there was no system of vetting outsiders who took children at the weekends and during the holidays: There certainly wasn't a vetting process that you might expect today, but mostly the families who took children from Goldenbridge were families known to the Sisters, either through having come maybe for entertainment times or for various activities, mostly. Because at one stage I think they did advertise for some people to take them.
6.120
The discussion of these topics, by way of introduction to the detailed investigations into abuse in the Sisters of Mercy institutions, is largely based on documents, submissions and evidence of the Sisters of Mercy which were presented by them without being challenged or contradicted. The system of discrete Congregations created some difficulties and exacerbated others, and generally made the task of each Community more demanding. The Sisters vows and religious obligations contributed to the experience of harshness, distance and other deficiencies of care in the institutions. It is, however, noteworthy that one senior member of the Dublin Community made no reference to these obstacles in 1953, when addressing the needs of good management. Any such impairment of the capacity of the Sisters in their temporal work by reason of spiritual commitments called into question the fitness of the Congregation to undertake work requiring sensitivity and understanding of the needs of others.
6.121
6.122
257
258
Chapter 7
St Vincents Industrial School, Goldenbridge (Goldenbridge), 18801983
Introduction
7.01 Goldenbridge was the subject of television and radio programmes and of a great deal of media coverage generally. Experiences of ex-residents of Goldenbridge featured in a number of publications, and some ex-residents were prominent in the campaign for redress. The programme Dear Daughter was a dramatised documentary that featured this Institution, and Goldenbridge was also referred to in the television series States of Fear. The screening of the third and last programme of that series provoked a huge public reaction and was followed by the Taoiseachs apology. Measures were announced that included the establishment of this Commission. Public meetings that were intended to generate support for the campaign for recognition and redress provided occasions for former residents to come together and share experiences. The Sisters of Mercy expressed concern at the possibility that people were being influenced by what was said at these meetings.
7.02
The hearings
7.03 The Investigation Committee held both public and private hearings in respect of Goldenbridge. Sr Helena ODonoghue, Provincial Leader of the South Central Province, gave evidence to the Committee in a public session on 15th March 2005. Her evidence was based on a detailed Opening Statement submitted in advance of the hearing. Evidence was heard from witnesses in private hearings from 18th March until 28th April 2005. A total of 40 complainants gave evidence at this time. A further four former residents gave evidence, at the request of the Sisters of Mercy, to provide positive accounts of their experiences of growing up in Goldenbridge. All complainants who wished to give evidence did so; in addition, four respondents and two expert witnesses gave evidence. The Committee had heard evidence from three complainants and two respondents in March 2002. In the third stage of the inquiry into Goldenbridge (Phase III), a public hearing was convened on 15th May 2006 at the Herbert Park Hotel, Ballsbridge, and Sr Helena ODonoghue once again gave evidence on behalf of the Congregation. This session focused on issues that arose as a result of the private hearings and the documentary material produced to the Committee. Documentation was furnished as part of the discovery process from a number of sources, namely the Sisters of Mercy, the Department of Education and Science, An Garda Sochana, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Archbishop of Dublin, and the medical records of some complainants. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 259
7.04
7.05 7.06
7.07
7.08
The Sisters of Mercy furnished Submissions on 20th June 2005. These Submissions were made in the aftermath of the evidence heard at oral hearings and the documentary evidence which emerged during the course of the inquiry.
Establishment of Goldenbridge
The Sisters of Mercy were founded by Catherine McAuley in Dublin in 1831. 7.09 In 1855, Cardinal Cullen invited the Sisters of Mercy to provide a rehabilitation service to women who had been incarcerated in Mountjoy jail, by educating them and preparing them for final release. Cardinal Cullen originally rented the premises at Goldenbridge and paid the rent for a five-year period. The convict refuge was opened in 1856. The Sisters continued with this work until 1883. In 1858, within two years of commencing this mission, the Sisters of Mercy had established a convent, a national school for the poor of the area, and a commercial laundry on the premises originally acquired by Cardinal Cullen, as well as the rehabilitation service for prisoners. These projects were funded by the mother house, which was then in Baggot Street, Dublin. In 1880, a building within the complex was certified as an industrial school for girls, with a certification for 50. It was called St Vincents Industrial School and it opened with an initial intake of 30 girls. In 1883, the convict refuge was converted into the Industrial School. Dormitories, a dining hall, workrooms and extra accommodation were added over the subsequent two years, at a cost of some 2,000. Within five years, the School had increased its certification from 50 to 150. From 1885, the number of children accommodated in the School remained steady, although there was a significant increase over the 1950s and 1960s, up to a high of 193 in 1964. At the time of its closure in 1983, there were 46 pupils in Goldenbridge.
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13
Organisational structure
7.14 There were 10 Resident Managers in Goldenbridge Industrial School during the period under review (19361983). These Managers were appointed by the Superior General in Carysfort in Dublin. Goldenbridge convent, to which the Industrial School was attached, was a branch house of the Carysfort house, which was the mother house of all the Dublin Mercy Communities. The Superior General of Carysfort appointed the Reverend Mother and assigned Sisters to Goldenbridge convent. From the records, it appears that the Reverend Mother also officially held the title of Resident Manager of the Industrial School. In reality, the Reverend Mother had very little involvement with the day-to-day running of the School. Her role consisted of interacting with the Department of Education. The actual management of the Industrial School was left to two nuns the Sister-in-Charge and, from 1942 onwards, her assistant. Only two of the 10 Resident Managers fulfilled the role of Sister-in-Charge and had direct involvement in the day-to-day management of the Industrial School. One such Resident Manager was Sr Bianca,1 who held the position from the early 1940s to the mid-1950s. The other was Sr Venetia,2 and her term of office ran from the early 1970s to the mid-1980s. Two of the five nuns who were closely involved with the running of the Industrial School are alive today.
1 2
7.15
7.16
7.17
260
7.18
In the Congregations Opening Statement, for Goldenbridge, it was stated: The Sisters chosen for responsibility in Goldenbridge were women of ability, sound common sense and normal home background.
7.19
There appears to have been no formal structure of communication between Carysfort and Goldenbridge. According to the Opening Statement: Reporting relationships were not very formal and probably depended very much on the personalities and expectations of the Superior in Carysfort and the local superior or resident manager in Goldenbridge.
7.20
There are no records of meetings or correspondence or any other documentation between the Resident Manager of Goldenbridge and the Superior General in Carysfort. Sr Helena ODonoghue stated that at one time Goldenbridge paid an annual levy to Carysfort and, at another period in time, all income went to Carysfort and an agreed budget was returned.
7.21
Goldenbridge management
7.22 The convent at Goldenbridge housed approximately 30 Sisters who were engaged in work throughout the local community. The Sisters ran a large national school in the Goldenbridge complex and also had a laundry that was a separate commercial enterprise. The laundry was closed in the mid-1950s, to facilitate the development of the secondary school. In addition, prior to 1954, there was what was known as a secondary top, which was an extension of the national school for children up to the age of 14. The Industrial School in Goldenbridge was a large institution but very few Sisters worked in it. Prior to 1942, the Reverend Mother of the convent was always the Resident Manager of Goldenbridge. Although there were four different Resident Managers notified to the Department of Education between 1936 and 1942, these Sisters had very little contact with the daily administration in the School or with the children who were committed to it. The testimony of Sr Alida,3 who came to Goldenbridge as a young nun in the early 1940s, was that administration in the school and management were delegated to one nun, Sr Pietrina,4 who was elderly and diabetic when Sr Alida was appointed. Sr Alida had no recollection of any other nun in the Community being involved in the running of the Institution other than Sr Pietrina. She said that, apart from visiting the Industrial School to watch films or concerts, there was no contact between the Industrial School and the convent, and the nuns in the convent would not have known the children in the Industrial School. The day-to-day operation of the School and the care of the children were left to two lay teachers, Ms Dempsey5 and Ms Kearney.6 After classes, these teachers supervised the children and put them to bed. They were assisted by four care workers, one in the kitchen, one in the laundry and two generally in the house. In the evening, Sr Pietrina returned to the convent, and the two lay teachers looked after the children until the next day. There were 150 children in Goldenbridge at that time.
3 4 5 6
7.23
7.24
7.25
This This This This
is is is is
a a a a
261
7.26
Before Sr Bianca was appointed to Goldenbridge, Sr Vincenza7 of Carysfort had appointed Sr Divina8 as Resident Manager in the early 1940s, which prompted the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education to protest. He wrote: I am desired by the Minister for Education to call your attention to the fact that the new Resident Manager whom you have appointed in St. Vincents Industrial School, Goldenbridge, is 79 years of age. The Minister feels that the management of an Industrial School would constitute a very heavy burden and responsibility on a lady of this advanced age. The supervision of the feeding, clothing, education and health of about 150 children, together with the keeping of the many accounts, records etc., which are required and, in addition, the fulfilment of her duties as Reverend Mother of the community would, in the Ministers opinion, constitute a heavy burden on a much younger and more active person. The Minister would accordingly be glad if you would reconsider this appointment with a view to appointing a much younger Sister who has had experience of children and on whom the complex duties of management would not be so burdensome.
7.27
Sr Vincenza replied immediately to the Assistant Secretary: In reply to your letter of 29th September regarding the appointment of an aged Sister as Manager of Golden Bridge Industrial School, I have this day appointed as Manager one of the Staff Sr. Bianca to that position. When appointing the Manager on the 12th September I sent an extra Sister to the Ind. School, who holds very high qualifications and certificates for Domestic Economy, Cookery, Needlework and Household Knowledge, to help with the management with the household work and management of the children, so that Sr. Bianca could be free to devote some time to the duties that the Manager would have to undertake. The appointment made today leaves Mother Pia9 free to devote herself to the Community in Golden Bridge Convent.
7.28
That, however, was not the end of the matter; the Department immediately replied, seeking clarification: Please state whether it is your intention to authorise Sister Bianca to exercise all the powers, functions and duties of the Managers in accordance with the provisions of the Children Acts, 1908 to 1941.
7.29
The Department of Education wanted to ensure that the actual day-to-day running of the Institution would be in the hands of a young, energetic, qualified Sister. Sr Bianca was appointed as Sisterin-Charge of the Industrial School in the early 1940s, and was appointed Resident Manager the following year. At the same time Sr Alida, who was a young newly professed Sister, in her mid-20s, was appointed as her assistant. Sr Bianca continued as Resident Manager until the mid-1950s. According to Sr Alida, when Sr Bianca took over she was a very powerful personality, controlling person. She went to her major Superior in Carysfort and said she would take the running of the school ... provided she got the handling of the finance. Sr Alida said that this gave her great ease of conscience because it meant that nobody could ever question that the money given to the Industrial School was spent by the convent in any other way. She explained:
7 8 9
7.30
7.31
262
there were lots of allegations at that time made, rightly or wrongly, that school money went to the convent. That was the system. Sr Bianca ended that system and the money was she had the cheque book, Pietrina never had a cheque book, and paid the bills. 7.32 Sr Alida maintained that only a person as powerful as Sr Bianca could have succeeded in having this change made to the management structure of Goldenbridge. She said that, before Sr Biancas intervention, the money came into the convent to the Superior and was lodged to the bank: I know we used to say that it wasnt all totally honestly done, I have absolutely nothing to say about that. I am not saying that. What I am saying was that the person running the school, Sr. Pietrina, would have said to me one day, and she was a long time in the school, all the money I ever handled while I was in the School was the money for the dripping. 7.33 Sr Alida described Sr Bianca as a woman with a forceful personality: I am saying it now with gratitude in my heart to her, she was a very controlling person, she could achieve things that I would never have done. I would have started in Goldenbridge if I were in her shoes doing a very different thing. I would have started looking for money to buy knickers and vests for the children. She saw the bigger facilities. They matched her personality. She got the walk-in fridge, she got two big steamers, the hotels wouldnt have them at that time, the kind she got. She had massive immediate improvements in the School, massive. She didnt see the need for changing the blankets or changing their homemade knickers. The School wouldnt have advanced as much as they did only for the power she had. 7.34 Sr Alida spoke at length about the changes that Sr Bianca introduced into Goldenbridge Industrial School immediately upon her appointment. In many ways, these changes speak more of the regime that existed before Sr Biancas appointment than anything else. They point to a management which had been so poor and so negligent that the children could not possibly have received even a minimum standard of care. The two areas which Sr Bianca tackled immediately were (i) the medical care of the children, and (ii) the standard of education. The issue of the medical care in Goldenbridge is dealt with later. As will be shown, the condition of the children was so bad that the School had to be closed down for two weeks whilst the problems of scabies and ringworm were tackled. Bedding had to be removed and disinfected by Dublin Corporation, and all the childrens clothing had to be boil-washed. Sr Alida vividly described the problem tackled by Sr Bianca which had reached crisis proportions at the time of her appointment. The Institution had been allowed to deteriorate into an appalling condition and Sr Bianca tackled these problems energetically. Similarly, the provision of education was extraordinarily poor at that time. Sr Bianca had to get basic equipment for the schoolroom. There were only two untrained lay teachers, and they were there in the dual capacity of carers and teachers. Sr Alida said: ... I never asked and I have no idea how they taught the 150 children of a school going age or how schooling was managed, but there was a programme for industrial school girls over 13 years of age. Everyday, five days a week, they had domestic training, cooking, laundry and dressmaking after 12.30, after the lunch hour. 7.39 Sr Alida described a lack of any facilities in the classroom. Only two of the four classrooms in Goldenbridge appeared to be in use. This led her to believe that no other Sister from the convent CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 263
7.35
7.36
7.37
7.38
was actively engaged in teaching in Goldenbridge in the years prior to her arrival with Sr Bianca. She confirmed that Sr Pietrina did not teach. 7.40 For the first few weeks of her time in Goldenbridge, the efforts of both Sr Alida and Sr Bianca were concentrated on the childrens health and dealing with the medical conditions that they found there. Once these medical problems had been brought under control, schooling was resumed. Sr Bianca ordered playground equipment from England at this time, including a number of swings and a merry-go-round and a drinking fountain for the playground. Sr Alida went on to describe the extremely primitive conditions in the Industrial School generally. It appeared that the only washing machines were so old and ineffective that they were not used, and all the washing for the 150 children was done by hand. She said the machines were eventually re-serviced and brought into use, but that they were always ineffective and it took a long time to wash the clothes. The cooking facilities in the kitchen were also primitive, and Sr Bianca acquired two large steamers that she used to prepare vast quantities of food. Conditions were difficult on other levels: it was very difficult to heat the Institution, and very difficult to get basic provisions for the children; all the clothing was handmade on the premises by the older children under the supervision of a lay worker. Sr Alida said that the older girls did all the domestic chores in the house. When Sr Bianca left Goldenbridge in June 1954, Sr Laurella10 took over as Resident Manager, although Sr Alida, who arrived in Goldenbridge on the same day as Sr Bianca, was the effective Manager of the Industrial School from 1954 until she left in 1963. The first former resident who gave evidence had been in Goldenbridge from 1949, and the Committee has relied on oral testimony to establish conditions after that time. Very little documentary evidence is in existence for conditions in the 1930s and 1940s. The Department of Education Medical Inspector, Dr Anna McCabe, inspected the premises and from time to time made suggestions regarding the care of the children. Her first two inspections were significant, because they coincided with the appalling conditions described by Sr Alida. The first was in 1939 and the second was in 1941. Nothing in these reports would indicate the level of neglect encountered by Sr Alida. At some time in the early 1950s or even the late 1940s, Sr Alida was approached by a businessman who suggested that the Institution could become involved in making rosary beads. Thus, the bead-making industry in Goldenbridge was introduced into the daily routine of the pupils, and it continued until the mid-1960s. In the early 1950s, Sr Bianca made the decision to acquire a holiday home for Goldenbridge in Rathdrum, County Wicklow. In 1954, a large house was bought for 3,000. According to Sr Alida, the money earned from the bead-making contributed 1,000 of this purchase price. According to the Opening Statement: ... it enabled everyone to have a summer holiday away from the institution. All children would spend some time in the summer at the holiday house and those who could not go home for a holiday spent the entire summer holidays there.
10
7.41
7.42
7.43
7.44 7.45
7.46
7.47
7.48
7.49
264
Although some former residents did not enjoy going to Rathdrum during the holidays, for most of them it represented a welcome respite from school and, in particular, from bead-making. 7.50 Ms Kearney, a teacher in the Institution, gave evidence that, prior to the purchase of the house in Rathdrum, children went on holidays to other Sisters of Mercy homes that were in the countryside or beside the sea. To spend 3,000 on a house that was only used for a few weeks every year, at a time when food and clothing and basic educational equipment were lacking, does not appear to be the most appropriate allocation of scarce resources. In 1954, when Sr Alida took over the management of the Industrial School, Sr Venetia joined her as a full-time assistant. She was a qualified primary teacher. Ms Dempsey and Ms Kearney were still the two lay teachers in Goldenbridge at that time, and there was also a small number of other lay staff employed by the Institution. In addition to the lay staff and the two Sisters, the running of Goldenbridge was also entrusted to the care of what were known as care workers. These care workers were girls who had grown up in Goldenbridge and were unable to get work outside the Institution. The template for the day-to-day running of the Institution had been established by Sr Bianca. Sr Alida said that she continued the methods and systems introduced by Sr Bianca although she did, as might be expected, make some improvements along the way. Sr Alida left Goldenbridge in 1963. She told the Inquiry about the circumstances of her departure. She had asked her Superior in Carysfort if she could be relieved from teaching duties, so as to be able to devote herself entirely to the administrative and caring side of her work. The response from Carysfort was to remove her entirely from Goldenbridge. Sr Alida was clearly unhappy at the manner of her removal, and she was in no doubt that it was because she had complained of overwork to her Superiors. Sr Alida was succeeded by Sr Simona11 for a short period, after which, in mid-1963, the management of Goldenbridge was taken over by Sr Venetia. Sr Venetia was responsible for many of the positive changes that occurred in the School throughout the 1970s. She was the person who steered through the change from institutional care to the group home arrangements that were introduced in the 1980s, and she ultimately oversaw the closure of Goldenbridge.
7.51
7.52
7.53
7.54
Numbers
7.55 The Department of Education reports revealed that the numbers of children detained in industrial schools increased until 1930, after which there began a steady decline. This decline was not experienced in Goldenbridge: in contrast, the numbers there continued to increase and, in 1962, the Resident Manager reported to the Department of Education that the School housed 193 pupils. According to Department of Education reports, there were 46 children in the Institution on its closure in 1983. In 1938, the accommodation and certified limits stood at 130 children. In February 1938, the Resident Manager applied to increase the accommodation limit to 150. An increase to 140 children was granted by the Department of Education on foot of this application. A further increase in the accommodation limit was granted in 1941, which brought the figure up to 150 children, but the certification limit remained the same at 130.
11
7.56
7.57
265
7.58
On 7th May 1943, the Resident Manager wrote to the Department, seeking an increase in the accommodation limit from 150 to 160 children, which was acceded to. However, on 22nd July 1943, Dr Anna McCabe wrote to the Department Inspector, following a visit to the School, expressing her disapproval of this increase. She stated that the School was absolutely crammed to capacity and that the infirmary had been converted into a dormitory without any alternative put in place. Accordingly, on 14th August the Department wrote to the Resident Manager and stated that the accommodation limit would revert to 150 children. The certified limit was changed to 140 on 1st April 1943. Another application was made on 19th October 1951 to the Department, by Sr Bianca, to increase the accommodation limit from 150 to 160 children. In support of this application, she stated that various improvements and additions had been made to the premises, including the acquisition of another house. The Department requested Dr McCabe to inspect the School with a view to making a recommendation in this regard. She carried out an inspection and recommended that, in view of the improvements made, an increase in the accommodation limit to 160 children could be sanctioned. The application was formally acceded to and took effect from 9th November 1951. In December 1954, the Resident Manager applied for and obtained certification for the admission of 15 infant boys. This was done at the request of the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr McQuaid, in order to provide relief to mothers who needed hospital care and who required care for their children on a temporary basis. According to the Resident Manager, it would allow siblings to be kept together. The Department accordingly increased the accommodation limit to 165 children. On 17th May 1962, the Resident Manager made another application to the Department for an increase in the accommodation limit, to 200 children. In support of her application, she stated that a new 220ft wing had been built, with a capacity to sleep up to 60 children. She accepted that the accommodation limit of 165 had been exceeded in the past year or more, and that they had at that time 193 children. The Department carried out an inspection of the premises and agreed to an increase in the accommodation limit to 185 children on 27th April 1963.
7.59
7.60
7.61
Conclusions
7.62
Sr Alida and a lay teacher depicted Goldenbridge as a grim institution in the 1940s, when children were seriously neglected and when inadequate staffing deprived them of proper care. 150 children were left in the care of two unqualified teachers and an ill, elderly Sister. The person with statutory responsibility, the Resident Manager, took no active part in running the Institution. Defects in the management of the School were not observed by official inspectors.
Emergence of allegations of abuse in Goldenbridge

7.63 The allegations of abuse in Goldenbridge first entered the public domain with the broadcast by RTE Radio 1 of an interview with an ex-resident, Ms Christine Buckley, on the Gay Byrne morning radio show. This was broadcast on 8th November 1992. It was the quest for her parents, and in particular for her father, which she undertook in her 30s, that brought Christine Buckley to the Gay Byrne show, but during the interview she was asked about her experience of growing up in Goldenbridge in Dublin. She described abuses that she and others suffered while resident there. Immediately, phone calls came in to RTE from women and men who had had similar experiences and who wished to extend their good wishes and sympathy to her. Meetings were set up with ex-residents, and the story was picked up by most of the national media. 266 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.64
7.65
Stories about institutional abuse, and in particular about Goldenbridge Industrial School, continued to appear sporadically in newspapers for the following couple of years, but it was not until 1996, when the Dear Daughter programme was broadcast, that Goldenbridge was once again the subject of intense media coverage and speculation. Shortly after the airing of Dear Daughter, Sr Alida was interviewed on the current affairs programme, Prime Time. In the course of that interview, she admitted that she had been harsh at times, but denied that children were abused in the horrific way described in many of the headlines. According to Sr Helena ODonoghue, This denial would appear to have been almost completely ignored in the public domain and it would appear that judgment had been given. Shortly before the Dear Daughter programme was broadcast on RTE, the Sisters of Mercy commissioned a professional childcare expert to write a report to assess the allegations which were being made by former residents in Goldenbridge. The Crowley Report offered little comfort to the Sisters who had commissioned it. Mr Crowley interviewed both Sr Alida and Sr Venetia. In his report he stated: Sr. Venetia confirmed that the general atmosphere was excessively and consistently cruel even relative to standards of the time. She confirmed that fear of and actual physical beatings and verbal abuse was a matter of routine and that the general account of children, for example, waiting on the landings was accurate. Wetting was defined as a crime and, therefore, punishable through humiliation and physical beatings. Sr. Venetia confirmed the allegations in relation to the tumble dryer and drinking from the toilet cistern. She also confirmed the bead making and that failure to obey rules were normally punishable by physical beatings.
7.66
7.67
7.68
7.69
He said of Sr Alida: She was trained by Sr Bianca, whom she describes as a very large powerful woman with a harsh aggressive and unpredictable personality. On reflection Sr Alida perceives the policies and practices of the 50s and 60s as being based on ignorance and failing to understand or care appropriately for the children.
7.70
In conclusion, Mr Crowley stated: The unsafe world of Goldenbridge developed a very particular culture which could not meet the needs of children. Very powerless people had enormous and immediate power over troubled and troublesome children. The abuse of the power and powerlessness was almost inevitable. Almost any kind of abusive incidents could have occurred. Dear Daughter programme
7.71
The Dear Daughter programme contained a number of very serious allegations against Goldenbridge and the Sisters of Mercy, and most of these are dealt with in the sections following on physical and emotional abuse. After the Dear Daughter programme was broadcast, newspaper coverage of the allegations was intensive and almost exclusively condemnatory of the Sisters of Mercy and Sr Alida. Headlines such as Unmerciful Nuns Tale, Hell on Earth for the Sin of Being Born, and Nightmarish Abuse by Sisters of Mercy appeared in newspapers. Former residents gave interviews on local and national radio, and allegations were recounted without any effective challenge. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 267
7.72
7.73
Following the broadcast of the Dear Daughter programme, a Garda investigation was undertaken, to establish whether criminal charges could be brought. There were no prosecutions, but the Garda files have been made available to this Inquiry. On 1st July 2004, Sr Breege ONeill, Leader of the Congregation, gave evidence to the Investigation Committee held in public on behalf of the Sisters of Mercy dealing with the emergence of allegations of child abuse in the Sisters of Mercy institutions. She spoke of the great hurt felt by the Community at the allegations that were being made, and also spoke of the enormous sacrifice made by Sisters throughout the years in aiding the poor and needy in this country. She asked that a proper and balanced investigation should take place into this whole matter. On 15th March 2005, Sr Helena ODonoghue made an Opening Statement at the public Phase I hearing in relation to Goldenbridge. Whilst she admitted that there was undoubtedly a regime that, by todays standards, would be described as harsh and severe, the Sisters were not satisfied that it was an abusive regime or that children were wilfully neglected whilst in their care. The Sisters of Mercy would not accept that the regime was cruel, abusive or neglectful. Whilst they admit that corporal punishment was the accepted means of imposing discipline, they say it was not done in an excessively harsh or extreme manner. They say that the extraordinary dedication and sacrifice of the Sisters, in caring for the poorest and most needy children in Dublin, must be taken into account when assessing the value of the work done in Goldenbridge. In particular, the Congregation does not accept the statements of Sr Venetia or Sr Alida, as quoted by Mr Crowley, as being accurate or fair. The complainants, on the other hand, state that the regime that they were subjected to was cruel, abusive and neglectful. They say that it left them ill-equipped to deal with life when they left the Institution, and that the damage inflicted on them, either neglectfully or deliberately, has scarred them in every aspect of their lives. Complainants acknowledged the physical provision made for them by the Sisters of Mercy, but it is their evidence that the abuse, degradation and neglect that they suffered far outweighed whatever benefits they might have received by virtue of having been resident in Goldenbridge.
7.74
7.75
7.76
7.77
Physical abuse
Corporal punishment
7.78 Most complaints about physical abuse related to the administration of corporal punishment: there were allegations that it was excessive, pervasive, often undeserved, and even capricious, with the result that, in Goldenbridge, corporal punishment became the norm, and the children lived in a climate of fear. The Sisters of Mercy deny these allegations and, while they accept corporal punishment was used, submit that its use was normal by the standards of the day. The Rules and Regulations for the Certified Industrial Schools in Ireland imposed limits on the use of corporal punishment. These limits were very restrictive for girls under 15 years, and even more so for older girls. The issue of discipline was dealt with in Regulation 12: DISCIPLINE: The Manager or his Deputy shall be authorised to punish the Children detained in the School in case of misconduct. All serious misconduct, and the Punishments inflicted for it, shall be entered in a book to be kept for that purpose, which shall be laid before the Inspector when he visits. The Manager must, however, remember that the more closely the School is modelled on a principle of judicious family government the more salutary will be its discipline, and the fewer occasions will arise for resort to punishment. 268 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.79
7.80
Regulation 13 stated that the punishments should consist of: (a) Forfeiture of rewards and privileges, or degradation from rank, previously attained by good conduct. (b) Moderate childish punishment with the hand. (c) Chastisement with the cane, strap, or birch.
7.81
The Regulation continued: Referring to (c), personal chastisement may be inflicted by the Manager, or, in his presence, by an Officer specially authorised by him, and in no case may it be inflicted upon girls over 15 years of age. In the case of girls under 15, it shall not be inflicted except in cases of urgent necessity, each of which must be at once fully reported to the Inspector. Caning on the hand is forbidden. No punishment not mentioned above shall be inflicted.
7.82
In addition, the Department of Education issued circulars and guidelines to Industrial School Managers, indicating that corporal punishment must always be kept within the bounds set down by the Regulations and must never be used excessively. Circular 11/1946 stated: Corporal punishment should be resorted to only where other forms of punishment have been found unsuccessful as a means of correction. It should be administered only for grave transgressions, and in no circumstances for mere failure at school lessons or industrial training.
7.83
The Circular went on to state that punishment should be confined to slapping on the hand with a light cane or strap, and that this should only be administered by the Resident Manager or by a member of staff specifically authorised by him. It added that any form of corporal punishment not in accordance with the terms of this circular is strictly prohibited. The Sisters of Mercy say that the general prevalence of corporal punishment in schools during this period is a factor which should be taken into account when determining whether corporal punishment was excessive or abusive. The regulations quoted above were drawn up at a time when corporal punishment was even more prevalent and yet the authorities recognised the need to make rules to protect children in care.
7.84
Punishment book
7.85 The regulations required that a punishment book be maintained and laid before the inspector when he visits. The Investigation Committee has seen no evidence of any punishment book in Goldenbridge. There is no reference to it in any of the documentation furnished to the Investigation Committee, nor is any reference made to it by the Department of Education inspector who visited Goldenbridge on regular occasions.
7.86
Allegations of physical punishment heard by the Investigation Committee

7.87 The evidence heard by the Investigation Committee broadly grouped the complaints about physical punishment under three headings. They were:
Formal beatings, where the children who had been singled out for punishment were lined up and beaten with a stick. This usually took place late at night, on a landing outside the nuns rooms or cells. Beatings given for specific offences such as bed-wetting, or failure to work fast enough at making rosary beads. These also were usually administered on the landing. 269
Informal beatings, where lay staff and nuns administered corporal punishment on the spot for trivial reasons or even for no reason.
The formal beatings: the implement used 7.88 The formal beatings were administered with an implement that Sr Alida called a slapper and the girls called a stick. Several witnesses gave a description of it. One witness, who was in Goldenbridge in the 1950s and early 1960s, told the Committee that it was a stick that a carpenter had made for Sr Alida. She described it as a flat stick, rounded off at the end, and varnished. Another complainant described the stick used by Sr Alida in some detail: The stick, in my opinion, was about a foot and a half long, about that length (indicating), it had rounding sort of ends, it was about an inch and a half thick and the width of it was about two inches. It was dark brown in colour ... It often reminds me of what I perceived to see as a hurl now with rounding ends but a bit thicker. 7.90 Sr Alida also gave a detailed description of it: I used a slapper. I have never used a cane, there was never a cane used in the School in my time, neither was there a leather strap. The slapper I had, there was only one in the house and I dont think anybody else used it except myself, it was made of polished wood and it was about 15 inches long. It was rolled at the end and was about half an inch thick in the middle, maybe less. I calculated that it never marked or cut anybody but I would agree that it hurt because I got it on the knuckles myself, when if a child pulled her hand away it came down on my hands; so I know what it was like. I wish Id never had to use it or I wish I was never in that situation with any child, but thats the situation I was in. 7.91 She added that she never saw anybody else use her slapper except for Sr Venetia. She said, Lay people could give a clout with their hand but that would be the most that I would see them doing. She said that no lay person ever beat the children, as far as she knew, but left it for her to do. Sr Alida was inconsistent in her recollection of beating children on the landing. Initially, she recalled children being left on the landing for punishment, although not in relation to bed-wetting or bead-making. Later, when questioned by counsel for some complainants, she said that this was more a feature of Sr Biancas time, and that she had no real memory of that being a feature of her time there. She said that, although she could remember chastising a child on the landing, it was not on a regular basis. The formal beatings on the landing 7.93 Many complainants spoke of the ordeal of being sent to the landing outside the nuns rooms for punishment. The system was initiated by Sr Bianca, and was also a feature of life during Sr Alidas time. Children who had done something that the staff deemed to be wrong were told they were to be punished that evening. They had to line up on the landing at bedtime, after they had changed into their nightclothes, and wait to be beaten. The landing was cold and dark. A witness described the location: ... where we used to have to wait was off Sacred Heart dormitory and there was steps down and there was a big gap and there was a statue. The nuns used to sleep in kind of an alcove off the landing and the nun would come up and hit us, hit me. 7.94 Many complainants told the Committee how they stood sometimes for hours in the cold with bare feet. They were not permitted to sit down. Some of them described this waiting as worse than the beating itself. 270 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.89
7.92
7.95
One complainant in Goldenbridge from 1950s to the early 1960s said that, after Sr Alida became Resident Manager: ... she took over and you were put on the landing when you wet the bed or when you did anything else bold, but mainly for wetting the bed. I was all the time one of those people. She would leave you on the landing until she was ready to come up and smack you, and you could be there for a long time.
7.96
She explained: To me, I think we waited two or three hours sometimes. We were just there, it really got late and we were falling asleep, and pushing one another when we heard her coming. You heard her coming eventually, but it wasnt only an hour or a half an hour, she would never come too soon it was always like you were there for ever, it seemed like forever ... it wasnt in her office, we were hit on the landing, smacked on the landing ... just her stick, the one she had everywhere with her. She just used to just bash you, just literally turn you around and wallop you. Sometimes she would hold out your hand, it depended.
7.97
Another complainant from the 1950s recalled being punished on the landing quite a few times, although she did not know why she was there. She said Sr Alida would sometimes smack them on the landing, but sometimes forget about them and leave them standing there for a very long time. She said she was frightened of the landing. When cross-examined on the issue, she insisted that she was, on occasion, left all night on the landing. She said that Sr Alida would find her when she got up early the next morning and then sent her to bed, but that would be at about 6.00am. Another witness from the 1950s told a similar story of waiting for hours for Sr Alida to come to bed. It was cold and dark, and they were not permitted to sit down. When she came up, she would not question them on what they had done wrong. She would proceed to punish with a stick, which she kept on a ledge on the landing. She would hit them on the hands and buttocks, usually 10 to 12 times. Sometimes, she used her hand rather than the stick. If it was very late when she came up to bed, she would tell them she would see them in the morning. The next day, she would beat them in front of her class. Waiting on the landing in anticipation of the punishment was, according to this complainant, worse than the actual beatings. A complainant from the 1950s and early 1960s said that she was very frequently sent to wait on the landing. She said that she could not recall specific reasons. She added: They seemed to be very very menial things, like maybe you stole a slice of bread or you ate out of the rabbits cage or you drank water out of the toilet ... There wouldnt have been anything, except my dress tore one time and that was another thing that I remembered.
7.98
7.99
7.100
7.101
There could be up to six or seven girls waiting on the landing when she was there, and she said that the bigger girls would push the smaller ones in front of them. She could not explain why: Why would anyone push someone in front, we knew we were going to be beaten anyway. Who wants to be beaten first? We would do that. Then she would, in rotation, she would beat us all.
7.102
When asked what she disliked most about waiting on the landing, she replied it was the fear and the cold. She said that they knew when Sr Alida was coming because they would hear a knock on a hatch at the bottom of the stairs, and someone opening it to give her water for her hot water bottle: We would hear her. As soon as we heard the knock on the hatch we knew that was her that was coming. We would all jump up and push the smaller ones in front of us. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 271
7.103
She described how they tried to cope with the cold while waiting: We would be down on our hunkers trying to keep ourselves warm with our nightdress and try to rub our hands together so that they would get warm so that the slaps wouldnt for some reason we thought the slaps wouldnt hurt if our hands were warm.
7.104
A witness from the 1950s and 1960s used to wet the bed, and so was sent to the landing from a very early age. She said: When you wet the bed you had to wait on the landing. I don't know how many times I waited on the landing, I don't know whether it was every night or once a week or twice a week. You were hit for wetting the bed. I was a very young child, it might have been 10 minutes, to me it seemed like hours. I don't know the length of time I waited on the landing. You did get hit and you used to have to protect yourself.
7.105
She continued: I was scared. You had to stand still, it was a very boring place to be. I just can't I think the older ones I probably did the same when I got older, the older ones pushed us to the front so the person that was hitting us her anger would be gone by the time she got to the bigger people ... I remember being shoved up to the top to get hit.
7.106
This explanation for pushing the younger children to the front, so that it was they who took the hardest hits, was put forward by another witness from the 1960s. She described the line of girls on the landing: You would be weak, terrified, anxious, shivering and shaking, and trying not to lean against the wall ... because you would be afraid, you werent supposed to do that, you werent supposed to rest, it was punishment. You wouldnt sit down. You wouldnt risk falling asleep. There you stood.
7.107
She continued: When you knew for sure she was arriving, there would be pushing and shoving about who was going first. Honest to God this is terrible, there would be younger children than you and you would be pushing them to get them to take the beating first. You didnt want to be the one to get the first of the strength. I am sorry, it was horrible, you had to do what you had to do. The screaming of children, the screaming of children will stay with me for the rest of my life about Goldenbridge. I still hear it, I still havent recovered from that. Children crying and screaming, it was just endless, it never never stopped for years in that place.
7.108
Girls were affected by what was happening to others: Whatever way they were going to be treated was no concern of mine but it did personally affect me ... I watched [a girl] sit on that landing on many occasions waiting for her beatings and I heard her screams and her shouting.
7.109
One witness, from the 1960s, described the distress she felt at seeing others being beaten: The fact that I had to witness all those beatings, I had to stand there, they would be in my group, for example, and they were beaten. I would see them being slapped. There was a cross on the wall with INRI on the wall above the crucifix. I dont know how I learned to do this, but I would look at INRI and make up words, so that I wasnt there, so that I didnt soak up what was going on ... We were helpless people and the helpless ones were the ones that were not bright. I met one or two of them in the survivors meetings in London and I stopped going to the survivors meetings because it was too traumatic for me. 272 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.110
The anguish of those to be punished was increased by long periods of anticipation and by witnessing other girls suffering. The landing became associated with fear. This system of punishment was cruel and abusive and it contravened regulations. Bed-wetting or enuresis
7.111
Bed-wetting was a problem in Goldenbridge, as it was in other residential institutions. It was not confined to industrial schools, nor has it ceased to be a problem in residential homes for children. Children wet beds at night for a variety of reasons. It was probably more common in industrial schools because of the particular circumstances of the children sent there: they had to endure the stresses and strains associated with separation from their families and the anxieties of institutional life. The problem usually disappeared as children matured, but it left behind feelings of anxiety and resentment. The practical problems were formidable. Bedclothes were made of materials such as calico and wool that were difficult to wash and dry quickly. Laundry facilities that might have been stretched in normal circumstances had to handle an increased volume of soiled bed linen. It has to be acknowledged, therefore, that bed-wetting constituted a major challenge to the facilities in an industrial school. During Sr Alidas time, a child who wet her bed in Goldenbridge had to sleep in a particular dormitory where all the bed-wetters were gathered. In this dormitory, children were woken up at night and taken out to the toilet. Their bedding was inspected daily. Children who wet the bed had to take their sheets to be inspected, and they were punished, usually by being beaten. Bed-wetters had their consumption of water restricted in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of an accident at night. Girls were thirsty as a result, and sought sources of water. This included drinking out of cisterns of toilets located near the dormitories. Some gave evidence that children drank out of the pan of the toilet. The attempt to prevent the intake of fluid proved to be largely unsuccessful. Bed-wetting was not considered to be a difficulty that children occasionally experienced, but was instead seen as a failure of discipline. In a report by Dr Moira Maguire and Professor Seamus O Cinneide, entitled Report for Newtownforbes Module, submitted by the Sisters of Mercy in respect of Newtownforbes Industrial School, the authors refer to medical knowledge that was available in the 1930s. The two references12 used by the authors show that bed-wetting was recognised as a psychological problem as far back as the 1930s, with major causes being unhappiness and nervous strain. Treating the problem with harshness exacerbated it, according to the British texts: In these cases ... the only cure is the removal of the cause of unhappiness that is, not by treating the physical symptoms but by treating the child psychologically. Success, not failure, should always be stressed.
7.112
7.113
7.114
7.115
7.116
7.117
The Irish article recognised the lack of child guidance practice in Ireland, but advised that children who wet the bed should be encouraged with rewards rather than punished. In Goldenbridge, bed-wetting was viewed as a punishable offence. The method of punishment and the place of the punishments varied. One witness recalled the punishment that was inflicted on her by Sr Bianca for wetting the bed: When I wet the bed which was nearly every night, she would bring you into this room, its called the linen room, it was a high room and a narrow room. She just proceeded to put me on the floor on my stomach, she put her left knee on my back, this was the punishment
12
7.118
Irish Journal of Medical Science 1939, and 1938 textbooks on the care of young children published in Britain.
273
I was getting by the way for wetting the bed, and a big girl, just a big girl ... again, to me she was about 15 or 16 ... she had to hold my legs down, pull down my pants and Mother Bianca pulled up my top and proceeded to smack me really hard for a while on the bum. 7.119 Sr Bianca used a stick, and the witness recalled she was punished in this manner two or three times a week. When she first arrived in Goldenbridge, in the early 1950s, that was the regime. She said that, when Sr Alida took over the running of the School in the mid-1950s, bed-wetters were sent to the landing to await their punishment. The witness also pointed out that children who were bed-wetters were not allowed to have a drink after 4 oclock in the afternoon. Another witness who was resident in the 1950s recalled the punishment she was given for wetting the bed. She was lined up in St Patricks classroom, along with other bed-wetters, and slapped on the hand by Sr Alida. She also recalled her hair being pulled and her face being pushed into the wet sheets. A complainant who persistently wet the bed recalled being beaten every morning. She also described the humiliation of sometimes having to parade her wet sheet in front of everyone: Then there were other times I remember there was a recreation hall and those of us who had wet the bed on some occasions we had to go into the front hall and stand there and people were coming in and out. On other occasions we had to go into the recreation hall, again with the wet sheets, and the other children were encouraged to walk around and jeer us. They would call us wet-the-beds. 7.123 One complainant said that, after Sr Alida became Manager: She took over and you were put on the landing when you wet the bed or when you did anything else bold but mainly for wetting the bed. I was all the time one of those people. She would leave you on the landing until she was ready to come up and smack you, and you could be there for a long time. 7.124 One witness, who was resident in the School in the 1960s and who regularly wet the bed until she was 14, stated that she was sent to the landing to await punishment and that she would be punished in the yard: I was afraid to go to the toilet and thats why I wet the bed. I think when I look back I thought it was every night I was hit, I dont know how many times a week I was hit but I was hit for bed-wetting ... if it was discovered after a certain time you got hit down in the yard that was off the rec, you got hit there. I was either on the landing or in the rec, as we called it. 7.125 She stated that the beds of children who wet the bed were checked during the night time by one of the older girls and, if the bed was wet, the child would be woken up and put standing on the landing. Another witness remembered: I can remember praying every night that I wouldnt wet the bed because I knew that the next morning I would be severely beaten, reprimanded and I remember feeling very cold and standing naked and just the shame, just the absolute shame of it. 7.127 A complainant who continued to suffer from nocturnal enuresis for some years after she left the School recalled being beaten by Sr Alida in the classroom. She was also beaten on the landing and she continued to be punished for bed-wetting until she left Goldenbridge at the age of 16. 274 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.120
7.121
7.122
7.126
7.128
A woman described how, in the 1960s, her younger siblings were hit by the lay staff for wetting the bed. As the eldest child, she could not bear to hear them being slapped, because she felt every slap they got. As a result, she took preventive measures: I found it very difficult because they were chastised in the mornings if they wet the beds. I couldnt bear that so I ended up waking up during the night and crawling under the beds up to the top beds to take the dry sheets off the other kids and bring them down to ... take the wet sheets off and just throw the dry sheets beside my brothers.
7.129
This complainant was approximately 10 years old when she was resorting to such measures to defend her siblings from being punished. For a child of such tender years, it was a very stressful experience for her. She told the Committee, I didnt get much sleep in the early days in the good few years while they wet the bed. I never really slept that well. A male witness who was resident in Goldenbridge in the 1970s recalled being beaten on one occasion for wetting the bed. He had tried to conceal the wet sheets, but a nun came into the dormitory and discovered them and she did kind of batter me. This nun then threw him and the sheets into a bath. He conceded that this was not a regular event. The worst aspect of this incident was the humiliation and fear of wetting the bed: just the whole humiliation of the whole lot. Even to this day, he said he had a fear of wetting the bed: I would still have that fear. I would wake up during the night just in case because sometimes you would feel like I was going to the toilet. Bed-wetting was an indication of emotional disturbance, yet the Sisters of Mercy used punishment relentlessly as a policy to deal with it, rather than analysing the reasons for the problem. The Sisters of Mercy acknowledge that it was not dealt with appropriately. They stated in their Opening Statement: Unfortunately, one of the methods of trying to deal with the problem in the earlier part of the period under review was to try to jolt the child out of the habit by punishment.
7.130
7.131
7.132
They also conceded that older girls were punished for bed-wetting. They said that two of the tactics used with the younger children was to deprive them of fluids in the late evening and waking them during the night to take them to the toilet. They acknowledged that the children who wet the bed would have suffered humiliation by the very reason of having to bring soiled sheets to the laundry basket. Furthermore, they apologised for any hurt and pain caused by them in response to the issue of bed-wetting: We further particularly regret the use of any form of punishment, including corporal punishment, in respect of children who suffered from a bedwetting problem. At the time it was thought that punishment would provide a deterrent in the erroneous belief that the child was able to control his or her bedwetting. In retrospect, we recognize that punishment for bedwetting must have been particularly traumatic, and that children who suffered from bedwetting, and punishment for bedwetting, had a particularly difficult time.
7.133
7.134
In their written Submissions, too, they accepted that corporal punishment and shaming tactics, such as making children parade their wet sheets in front of the other children, were used, but that it was likely from the evidence heard that such practices ceased after a certain point. Sr Alida stated that bed-wetting was a huge problem during her early days in Goldenbridge. She asserted that they tried every possible means to counteract this problem, including waking children at 2am to go to the toilet. She stated that each child who had a persistent bed-wetting problem was sent to Dr. Steevens Hospital for investigation. She also recalled that she received medical advice, around 1954, to cease the practice of waking children during the night. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 275
7.135
7.136
Sr Alida denied beating any child for bed-wetting: ... For bed-wetting, I cannot account, I cannot account for bed-wetting, I didnt beat for bed-wetting. I beat for lots of other things.
7.137
She added that none of the lay staff had authority to deal with the problem of bed-wetting amongst the children and, in particular, they were not permitted to punish the children: [The staff] had never any authority to punish children for bed-wetting that I know of, I never gave it to anybody. I dont remember myself taking anybody in the line, beating them for bed-wetting ... I have no recollection of ever having children on the landing for bed-wetting.
7.138
However, under cross-examination she conceded that she had in fact slapped children for bedwetting. When asked whether she accepted that she had slapped children for bed-wetting, she responded, I suppose I have to. I slapped a lot more than I am happy to be thinking of these days. She continued to deny that she lined up bed-wetters in St Patricks classroom for punishment, or that children were made to parade with their wet sheets.
7.139
7.140
Corporal punishment was used as punishment for bed-wetting long after the 1950s, contrary to what was asserted by Sr Alida and the Congregation. Witnesses who were in Goldenbridge in the 1960s, and even the 1970s, gave evidence of being beaten for wetting the bed at night. The methods of dealing with bed-wetting proved to be wholly unsuccessful, but they were continued over many years and under different Managers. If the management had sought to create conditions in which it was probable that children would wet their beds, the steps adopted could scarcely have been chosen with more effect. They set up a cycle of behaviour by the children and by the authorities which, instead of tending to eradicate the problem, actually exacerbated it. The combination of measures resulted in more extensive bed-wetting and for longer periods in the childs life than would otherwise have been the case. The pattern of identification, exposure, segregation, differential treatment, embarrassment and humiliation was completed by punishment when the predictable and almost inevitable result came about.
Informal punishments 7.141 Witnesses spoke of other ways in which corporal punishment was administered unfairly and undeservedly. They claimed it was used so commonly that it was impossible to avoid it. One witness, who was in Goldenbridge in the 1940s from seven years of age, told the Committee: I would stand there and when you hear the noise and the shouting, the roaring and the screaming, then what did I used to do I used to stand there with urine running down my legs with the fear of knowing that whatever you were going to do, whatever you were going to say ... you couldnt say anything, if you looked at them you got clattered. If you looked away you got clattered. If you put your head down you got clattered. So what could you do? I used to try and disappear into the ether ... You knew that you could never get away from the cruelty. You couldnt escape and take yourself off. 7.142 Many witnesses testified that there was no way that they could avoid being slapped, whether for behaviour regarded as seriously wrong or for something trivial, or indeed for no apparent reason. When punishment was administered, there was no necessary correlation between the seriousness of the infraction and the severity of the beating. 276 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.143
There was no body of rules governing the occasions or the circumstances in which punishment would be administered. There was no punishment book. Records were not kept as to the punishments imposed. Staff were not instructed as to what was permissible. The absence of any obligation to record punishment meant that the infliction of punishment was, in practice, unregulated. There is general acceptance that punishment happened too often and too severely and in an unrecorded and unregulated manner. The absence of rules meant that the children did not know how to avoid punishment. Without a clear system in place to make punishment predictable and avoidable, the children lived in fear, and those in authority became indifferent to good order and discipline in themselves. The adults were given so much autonomy that they alone decided whether to give punishment or not, and they alone decided what warranted it. They decided how much punishment was given and in what manner it was administered. It should have been the case that the Manager, or somebody deputed on her behalf for that purpose, administer the punishment and then record it. The actuality was different. The nun in charge of the girls or her assistant regularly and frequently administered punishment with a stick. The respondent evidence was that it was confined to slapping on the hands and then in moderate quantity. There was, however, a preponderance of persuasive evidence to the contrary, that slapping was not confined in that way. Instead, it could happen that a child would be struck on the hand or arm, or indeed on the legs or some other part of the body. Children were sometimes punished by being locked into a room, described as the furnace, and one witness described a particularly terrifying experience when she had offended one of the care workers and found herself locked in. She could not remember how long she was there, but screamed all the time. Care assistants also punished the children. These workers had grown up in Goldenbridge and knew no other method of coping with children. They were scarcely more than children themselves, and their moral responsibility for what they were doing was slight by comparison with others in higher positions in the ladder of authority. A former teacher, now of advanced years, gave compelling evidence of the environment generally and the state of the children in Goldenbridge during her years. On the issue of punishment, she said that she used a ruler for most of her time in preference to a leather strap, which she had been given at the beginning of her career but which she had rejected when she accidentally discovered how painful it was. When she was asked whether she used the flat of the ruler or the edge of it, as some witnesses had testified, she candidly acknowledged that sometimes she used the edge, when children had particularly annoyed her.
7.144
7.145
7.146
7.147
7.148
Climate of fear
7.149 Many complainants gave evidence of living in a perpetual state of fear in Goldenbridge. Children were punished for trivial misdemeanours. A complainant who spent the 1950s in Goldenbridge recalled that the beatings were constant. This witness gave evidence of one occasion when she was the only child on the landing waiting for punishment. Sr Alida took her into her cell and called Sr Venetia to join them. The complainant was told to take off her nightdress, and she was then beaten by both nuns. Sr Venetia used her hand, but Sr Alida beat her with the stick across the buttocks and on the hands. She said it was a more severe punishment than usual and that she did not know what she had done to merit it. A further complainant, who was resident in Goldenbridge from 1954 until 1966, recalled being punished by Sr Alida: CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 277
7.150
7.151
... If you were walking say down the thing, she would say, what are you doing here? And she would lash out at you. You dirty article, she would just give you a lash out. Like being on the wet-the-bed line. I was always so frightened of her. When I used to see her I used to shiver inside. 7.152 A complainant, who spent the 1960s in Goldenbridge, remembered Sr Alida as being particularly severe: Sr Alida was extremely cruel. She beat children, she had us standing on landings where she beat us. She beat us down in St. Patricks for having wet sheets. We were beaten in the yard for having wet sheets, for wetting the bed. You couldnt pass her, you were just terrified passing her. The swish of her. You would see her coming. 7.153 A complainant, who spent a number of years in Goldenbridge, gave evidence of the fear induced by Sr Venetia: There was one person you were frightened to look at with her blue eyes and her pale skin ... She had a dreadful habit, I don't know why she did it, you had to stand in a half circle with you. She would come behind you, her presence, as she passed, you always thought you were going to get a whack on the legs. She had a dreadful habit of (indicating) "who can I smell?" We all knew we smelled. Is she going to pick us? 7.154 This complainant recalled being punished on a regular basis by Sr Venetia. She said that Sr Venetia would beat children for wetting the bed, and she also recalled being beaten by her on the legs during Irish Dancing classes, for not raising her legs high enough: Sr Venetia had a way that you had to stand a distance from her. She never got close to you. She stood so far and you stood and your hands at all times had to be out straight ... If you bent your elbows she would come close to you then and she would just whack those elbows. In the end, you just held your arms out. Sometimes you would just think to yourself when is she going to stop? She had this way of looking at you, I dont know. She seemed to get redder and redder as somebody who was hitting you, whereas she was quite a pale person any other time. She seemed to get into this frenzied type look. She was a very cruel woman. 7.155 Another resident from the mid-1950s until the mid-1960s, recalled a high level of physical abuse in Goldenbridge. On a regular basis, she was slapped with a cane, even as a very small child. She later said: Physical abuse was part and parcel of everyday life in Goldenbridge. Sr Venetia would have many, many times abused me physically and verbally. It didnt have to be for anything specific. It could be your laces werent tied or it could be your hair was untidy. It could be that she didnt like the look of you that particular day. 7.156 A complainant who was in Goldenbridge for 10 years from the mid-1960s stated that her initial memories of Goldenbridge were of hitting, taunting and name-calling, and that she was constantly in front of Sr Venetia, who slapped her with a hand brush for minor misdemeanours. She recalled being beaten on one occasion because she had a button missing from her nightdress. This complainant asserted that Sr Venetia called her names, either that she was dirty or that she was man mad. On one occasion, this complainant, who was only seven years of age at the time, suffered from diarrhoea during the night. She had an accident on her way to the bathroom, and the next morning, when questioned, she denied being responsible. Nevertheless, she was sent to Sr Venetia and was identified as the culprit. Sr Venetia slapped her with the hand brush, and she was slapped 278 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.157
by everybody who had any dealings with the situation at all, including the lay workers on the dormitory. 7.158 One witness from the 1950s and 1960s said that occasionally you would get a smack across the face from Sr Venetia when she checked the rosary beads in the evening, but on the whole she did not have any complaint about Sr Venetia. She later said: She never actually hurt me. I am here for myself. She never actually hurt me ... she would slap but she wasnt cruel. What I mean by a slap, I never saw her giving anybody a hiding. 7.159 She contrasted Sr Venetia to some of the lay workers who were there, whom she described as very cruel. This complainant, as with so many other complainants, was able to make the distinction between the corporal punishment administered by Sr Venetia and that administered by the lay care workers and by Sr Alida. Sr Venetia was not perceived as being unfair, cruel or brutal. She was singled out as having taken action when complaints by the girls were made to her about the treatment meted out to one of the younger children by the lay workers. Another unusual complaint was that children were put into the large, industrial-sized tumble dryers. Complainants named lay staff, other children and, in one instance, Sr Alida as being responsible. The dryer was not turned on when the children were put into it, but they found it a very frightening experience. One complainant recalled being put into the tumble dryer by some of the older girls: There was a dryer on the right-hand side, quite a rounded looking thing, not like what you would see a dryer today and it was quite a lot off the floor. One of them picked me up and put me in there and they shut the door. I can see one of their faces now looking in that. 7.163 In the Crowley Report, Sr Venetia confirmed the allegations in respect of the tumble dryer. Sr Alida acknowledged to Mr Crowley about being confronted by a parent for threatening to place her daughter in the tumble dryer. In evidence, she said that a person had come to her to tell her that her child was afraid of the tumble dryer and advised her about it.
7.160
7.161
7.162
Allegations of abuse perpetrated by lay workers

7.164 The Investigation Committee heard a number of allegations against lay workers who were employed in the Institution. There were three different categories of lay worker in Goldenbridge. There were four teachers in the internal primary school, two of whom were nuns, together with two lay teachers. The second category of lay worker was the staff who looked after kitchens and dormitories and who were, to a very large extent, the people at the centre of childcare in Goldenbridge. These lay workers were responsible for the day-to-day running of the Institution, but were of course subject to the authority of the Resident Manager and her Assistant Sister at the time. Their task was mainly to assist with the supervision of the children before and after school hours. They worked in shifts, two on and two off. The lay staff were not trained in any aspects of childcare. In the third category were former pupils who were retained as helpers, at the expiry of their detention orders at the age of 16. Sr Alida stated that there were only three former pupils towards the end of her tenure in Goldenbridge who were retained as helpers, although this number was greater in the earlier years. She said: CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 279
7.165
7.166
7.167
There were two or three girls who had no motivation to leave, had difficulty of their own; one was severely handicapped mentally and incapable of making her own way in the world, the other had a very serious speech defect and I cannot put down exactly, obesity I suppose I would say for the third, which we tried to get treated and it didnt change. They would be the only three past pupils that were working in the school that I can remember in my time. 7.168 Sr Alidas description of the former pupils who were retained to look after the other children and work in the Industrial School would suggest they were entirely unsuitable to work with children. One complainant, who was in Goldenbridge between from the early 1950s to the late 1960s, spoke at length about the care workers who were there. She described many of them as very cruel. She described one incident where she was being administered cod liver oil by a care worker, and when it was her turn she said, Thank you, Ms Rafter,13 with a smile on her face. She said that this infuriated the care worker, who dragged her into a linen room, threw her on a table and took off her underpants. She hit her from head to toe with a hand brush, and then put a nappy on her. She said that, on another occasion, she was beaten for making a comment while she was watching television. She ran away as a result of this, but was brought back. She told Sr Venetia that she had run away because she was sick of being hit. She said she doesnt believe her complaint had any impact on Sr Venetia, but that, on a subsequent occasion, one of the smaller children had come up to her and her friends with no clothes on and full of bruises. When they asked her what was wrong, she said that Ms Rafter had hit her because she had worn her knickers in bed. This complainant and her friends went to Sr Venetia and said that they would go to the Evening Press or the Herald if the beatings didnt stop and all those kind of, what we classed as carers now, they were gone in two weeks. They were cruel. This complainant named four care workers, who were all removed very shortly after the complaints had been made to Sr Venetia. This complainant said that Goldenbridge did improve after that had occurred, although it still was not a nice place. Another complainant, who was in Goldenbridge between the mid-1950s and the mid-1960s, said that one carer, who looked after the babies, stood out in her mind as being very kind to the children. She said that she was one of the inmates of the Institution who had been kept on and given a job there. Another former resident, who remained in the School to work as a carer, stood out in her memory: she described her as a product of the system. She often woke the children up in the morning, and she would sometimes lift a mattress and throw it onto the floor with the child on it. This complainant said that Ms Thornton14 was a very very aggressive woman. This complainant had a certain amount of compassion and understanding for Ms Thornton, and said: She never knew any different, she grew up in the system. When I think now in retrospect I kind of feel sorry for her. This witness recalls another staff member, who was a woman of very, very low intellect, who used to put her hands up the childrens skirts if they were carrying anything into the kitchen or washing dishes. Again, the complainant had compassion and understanding and did not blame this person. She talked about a third incident, where a minder threw her into a swimming pool when they were on holidays in Rathdrum. She said that this minder used to treat her badly if there was a nun
13 14
7.169
7.170
7.171
7.172
7.173
7.174
7.175
280
around to witness it, She done that to get attention from the nun that was approaching. It was just a case of silly behaviour. 7.176 What clearly emerged from the evidence of this witness is that, although she was subjected to abuse herself, she does not hold the lay workers responsible because they were either so damaged by the system themselves or they were intellectually incapable of understanding what they were doing. In many ways, this is a view that is reflected by a number of complainants, and it is more a reflection on the authorities in Goldenbridge, who employed these unfortunate women and left them in charge of children, than on the women themselves. A complainant, who was in Goldenbridge from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, also spoke at some length about the lay staff. She mentioned a lay member of staff and said that she was worse than Sr Alida: She was allowed to run riot. She brutalised the children. She said that these people were not teachers, but were carers and supervised the children. She said that the older inmates in the Institution did all the work like washing, bead making and looking after the children, but these carers supervised all of that. This complainant also spoke about being a personal maid to one of the care staff. She said that she cleaned her room, put on her hot water bottle, made her bed, cleaned her floor, ironed her clothes and generally looked after her. The witnesses who attended Goldenbridge in the late 1950s and 1960s were vocal in their criticism of the care workers who were in the Institution at that time. The main criticism is that these young girls, who had themselves come through Goldenbridge, were unsupervised and uncontrolled by the authorities in Goldenbridge. This does not seem to have been as big a complaint while Sr Alida was the nun in charge of the day-to-day running of the Institution but when Sr Venetia took over the day-to-day management, this did emerge as a major issue. A witness complained of being badly beaten by Ms Rafter, who was the subject of an earlier complaint to Sr Venetia and was finally removed by her in the late 1960s. This complainant also identified Ms Thornton who she said beat a girl in the dining hall, Ms Thornton was violent, she was a very violent person. She was another one that you were frightened to look at. This complainant again made the point that, at this stage, Goldenbridge was being run and looked after by lay staff and older girls. She said that, although the nuns were there and Sr Venetia was in charge, the real running of the Institution was left to lay staff. Another complainant spoke about her experience in Goldenbridge and was quite frank about the impact her experience had on her own personal development. She said that a lot of the actions taken in Goldenbridge were done deliberately to embarrass and humiliate the children. She said Ill put it like this, I find a lot of the women who looked after us, including Sr Venetia, I find a lot of them in me. I will do things to embarrass people if I dont like them. I try not to. Another complainant singled out Ms Thornton as being particularly cruel. She said that she had a grudge against an awful lot of people. She said that, on one occasion, when she tried to intervene because Ms Thornton was hitting her brother, Ms Thornton twisted her arm and actually broke it. She said that she was too terrified of Ms Thornton to tell Sr Venetia what had happened, and so she told her that she had hurt it in the washing machine. She was afraid that, if she had told on Ms Thornton, her little brother would have been victimised by her. She said that Ms Thornton was particularly cruel to the little boys, and that she told other girls about this, and eventually it got back to Sr Venetia, but she only got beaten and had her head shaved by a member of the lay staff as a result. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 281
7.177
7.178
7.179
7.180
7.181
7.182
7.183
7.184
One complainant who was in Goldenbridge in the 1960s was one of the most condemnatory of the lay staff in Goldenbridge. She described a regime where the unqualified and largely illeducated lay staff were effectively out of control and administering severe physical punishment. Abuse by lay staff became a major feature of life in Goldenbridge in the 1950s and 1960s and continued until, eventually in 1966, Sr Venetia removed four particularly abusive lay staff members, and conditions improved thereafter. This complainants recollection is of one of those staff members who was finally complained about to Sr Venetia, and she describes her as an absolute demon. She recalls her dragging her off a bed in the dormitory, pulling off her clothes and beating her in front of other girls. She said that she boxed her, kicked her and threw her to the floor. She was left in a very bad state, and that night woke up screaming in her sleep. Somebody went and got Sr Venetia, who was told what had happened to her, but as far as she knew that was the end of the matter. This complainant says that, some time later, another child received a similar beating from Ms Rafter. She said: I was finished, I was shattered, I couldnt fight any more, I was finished. I just felt utterly hopeless, it was over, I could have died, I didnt care. She broke my spirit completely and I had plenty of it but she broke it and it has taken me years and years and years to recover any of it and I still will never get over that woman.
7.185
7.186
7.187
This complainant said that this lay staff worker was often in charge of the recreation hall. She said that this was a huge room, and was used for recreation if the weather prevented the children from going outside. She said: We used to go into that room and you would have to sit like this (indicating) your finger on your lip (indicating) and you dare not move and I mean move or display any body language. If you looked and caught your friends eye across the other side of the room or if you winked or blinked or anything there was this orgy of violence that followed. Nothing short of an orgy of violence.
7.188
The complainant said that the nuns were never present during any of this, that they were always in the convent. She said that these lay workers, not just Ms Rafter, but others whom she named, kicked the children, pulled off their clothes, pulled them by their hair, beat them and battered them. She said she would never forget those fights as long as she lived, and that she has had to live with it almost every day of her life. She said she recalls one little girl getting an appalling beating because she asked one of the carers Is your name Ms Rafter?. She said that those carers should have been named as respondents and been forced to answer for what they did. She said this was something that happened every day, especially in the wintertime, but she said it was not just in the recreation hall, it also happened in the dormitories after the nun had gone back to the convent. Another complainant, who was in Goldenbridge in the 1960s, also spoke about the bullying that went on in the School. Again, this is a complaint that was not seen in the 1940s and 1950s, when there appeared to be a great deal more control over the School. By the 1960s, undoubtedly the issue of bullying had arisen. This complainant said that there were a lot of bullies in the School, and that it was survival of the fittest. She said that this bullying was conducted by members of the staff and that, as a child, she found that these people did not care. She said that they were doing their job, but that there was a great deal of punishment. She said that these lay people had a great deal of power and they inflicted severe beatings. Another complainant who was in Goldenbridge in the early 1960s was a small boy when admitted. He remembers getting beatings, particularly for bed-wetting. He said: You had girls in charge. You had nuns, then you had outsiders, you had elder girls put in charge of the younger ones, they used to give as nearly as much beatings as what the 282 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.189
7.190
nuns did for certain things. After being out of there and you think back, these girls were brought up with that sort of treatment and they portrayed that on younger kids. They were in there for years so that is all they knew, but you were underneath these people cos they were bigger and stronger and there longer, so you were getting it at every angle. 7.191 Sr Alida in her evidence stated that lay staff were not authorised to slap children and that, as far as she knew, they did not do so. She said that, as far as she was aware, she and Sr Bianca, or later she and Sr Venetia, were the only persons who administered corporal punishment in the School, and the lay staff left any problems for them to deal with. She also said that she believed that the two lay workers who were left in charge while she and Sr Venetia went over to the convent in the evenings had a difficult task maintaining discipline, and that was why there would be children waiting for her on the landing.
7.192
Discrimination
7.193 Witnesses complained that children were not all treated alike in Goldenbridge. They were protected to some extent if they had a relative who visited them regularly. Favouritism was a complaint made particularly by witnesses who were in Goldenbridge during the 1960s. A complainant, who was aged nine in the early 1960s, described the difference in the way that children were treated. This witness and her siblings were placed in care on the death of their mother, and she noticed particularly how two members of another family were treated so differently that it came as a shock to her to realise they were sisters. Whereas one girl was favoured as a pet, the other was treated with extreme cruelty and was often seen waiting on the landing for punishment. Another complainant, objecting to favouritism, remarked that the very fact that the nuns and lay staff were capable of forming attachments with certain children demonstrated that they knew how to treat children properly and show them love and affection: It was wrong there was no need for it, why couldnt they treat us all like pets, why not? Thats a choice they exercised. 7.196 A witness, who was five years old when he was committed to Goldenbridge, gave evidence. He was transferred to Artane when he was nine years old. He stated that, before he was committed to institutional care: I was a happy, young little kid and I believe I was turned into a nervous wreck in these places. 7.197 He was emotionally upset by the death of his mother and was a regular bed-wetter. He was lefthanded and was constantly beaten for it in class. This vulnerability made him an obvious target for bullies. He summed up his situation as follows: I remember just constantly getting beaten. Even in the classroom being nervous, and left handed, you werent allowed to do things left handed, the devil was in you, you were told ... From constant beatings I had a stutter and I had a turn in my eye as well, and I used to get an awful time off the rest of the kids. 7.198 The Sisters of Mercy in their Submission accepted that this complainants circumstances made him more vulnerable. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 283
7.194
7.195
A change in atmosphere
7.199 Many complainants gave evidence that the atmosphere in the School improved under Sr Venetias management. She did not resort to physical punishment to the same extent as her predecessor. One complainant described her relief when Sr Alida left in the early 1960s: I was relieved when she left. I was relieved to the extent that I knew Sr Venetia had done some things, but she was still never on a par with Sr Alida, where bullying and beatings and things were concerned ... I got some beatings from Sr Venetia, but she would never have lets face it when somebody is beating you they are not happy and smiling. She would never have had that harshness in her face or in her voice that Alida had, that horrible horrible venom that was dished out for me by Sr Alida. 7.200 Another complainant described the relief after Sr Alida left, and stated that the children were happier: I felt personally that there was an air of lightness in the place ... it just seemed that there was something there was a little bit of fear gone ... We didnt have to see that big figure coming down the hall, and if you were running or anything like that, and getting a slap on the head. Thats the way I used to be afraid, you would see the big black figure. 7.201 At the same time, the witness added that Sr Venetia was moody, which could create a tense, uncertain environment: Sometimes I found her alright. I think it depended on her mood. She did punish severely as well. 7.202 Another difference between the two nuns was that Sr Venetia was verbally cruel and sarcastic, and witnesses spoke about how they were hurt by her comments. One witness recalled how Sr Venetia deliberately ridiculed her because her mother had spent time in a psychiatric hospital: She used the term cracked like your mother many, many times. I used to live in fear of her coming into my view because I was terrified that she would say these words.
7.203 Sr Alida stated in evidence that, during most of her time in Goldenbridge, there were 150 children and four staff members. In order to maintain discipline, she had to be very controlling. Given the nature of the work and the constraints under which the staff operated, she stated that it was very possible that staff were bad tempered. It was the system that obliged her to use corporal punishment as often as she did. She explained: Today I would hate to think of the things I had to do or the things I did, but in the system as it was I dont know what resolution there was to it. Maybe it was a too easy situation to get rid of a problem, instead of sitting down to talk or to advise you slapped and that was the end of the problem. 7.205 She asserted that she never saw anybody else use a slapper except for Sr Venetia. She said, Lay people could give a clout with their hand but that would be the most that I would see them doing. She said that no lay person ever beat the children, as far as she knew, nor did they have authority to punish the children in any manner. Sr Alida had a clear memory of children being on the landing during Sr Biancas time, but she had no real memory of that being a feature of her time there. Although she could remember chastising a child on the landing, it was not on a regular basis. She also said that lay staff did not chastise children but left it for her to deal with. 284 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.204
7.206
7.207
Sr Alida maintained that she and Sr Venetia were the only persons who administered corporal punishment in the School: the lay staff were not authorised to slap children and, as far as she was aware, they did not do so. Ms Garvin,15 formerly a Sister of Mercy who had worked as an assistant teacher in Goldenbridge from the early 1960s to the mid-1970s, was adamant that, while there was corporal punishment, it was not excessive. Sr Gianna16 gave evidence to the Investigation Committee. She worked as an assistant in the School from 1960 until she took her final vows as a Sister of Mercy a few years later. She stated that, although Sr Alida used a stick for corporal punishment, it would cause no more than temporary discomfort to a child. She agreed that it could leave bruising on a childs body, but she said she never witnessed such injuries. Both the above witnesses said that they believed the atmosphere was very good in Goldenbridge and that the children were happy there.
7.208
7.209
7.210
The Crowley Report

7.211 Among the discovered documents was a report commissioned by the Sisters of Mercy in 1996 on the conditions of life in Goldenbridge. It was commissioned to prepare the Congregation for the television programme Dear Daughter and its aftermath. The Dear Daughter programme was shown on RTE in February 1996, and it produced a massive response from the media and the public. Complaints were made to the Garda and an investigation followed, but there were no prosecutions. The Congregation was aware that the programme was being planned and that serious allegations would be made about how children had been treated in Goldenbridge. In advance of the screening of the programme, the Congregation decided to find out what it could about conditions in the Institution. One of the first things that it did was to commission a professional childcare expert to give an initial assessment of the allegations, and that inquiry gave rise to the first apology that the Sisters of Mercy issued in February 1996, following the screening of the programme. The preliminary inquiry was undertaken by a senior social worker with the Western Health Board. His brief was to develop an assessment of the allegations being made regarding the care received by children in Goldenbridge in the 1950s and 1960s. Mr Crowley gathered information from the following sources:
7.212
7.213

7.214
Transcript of the Gay Byrne interview with Ms Christine Buckley in 1993. A meeting with Mr Louis Lentin, the producer of the programme that was going to shown on RTE. A meeting with a former resident of Goldenbridge. Meeting with Sr Alida. Meeting with Sr Venetia. Report and feedback from Sr Bettina17 on her interviews with former residents.
Mr Crowley approached his task in two ways. Firstly, he sought to establish and clarify the broad nature and patterns of the allegations being made. Secondly, he examined the information and carried out interviews, with a view to forming an independent professional assessment of the general nature of the care provided in Goldenbridge in the context of the allegations.
15 16 17
285
7.215
He identified four areas of complaint which were interrelated. They were physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect of childrens basic needs. Mr Crowley compiled a summary of allegations that were made about the regime: Physical Abuse 1. A constant pattern of physical abuse. 2. Severe beatings resulting in children being physically marked was the dominant form of discipline. 3. The beatings were carried out by a number of lay staff but most especially by Sr Alida. Beatings were so routine that they were witnessed by and colluded with by all members of staff. 4. Children were deprived of food. 5. Children were kept awake late into the evenings while awaiting physical punishments and were thus deprived of sleep. 6. Children were deprived of heating and warmth. 7. Children were routinely involved in inappropriate physical tasks connected with maintaining the establishment. 8. Some of the severe punishments were inflicted in circumstances in which there were sexual and humiliating elements including, for example, public and forceful removal of clothes before physical punishment. 9. Children were not clear as to why they were being beaten. 10. Children lived in constant fear of experiencing and witnessing physical abuse. Emotional Abuse 11. Routine derogatory references to the childrens background and to their parents behaviour. 12. Verbal abuse which combined with other interactions had the effect of reinforcing negative self images and damaging self confidence and feelings of worth. 13. Denial of appropriate recreation. 14. Imposing onerous responsibilities on children who were too young to carry them out, such as taking responsibility for the care of other children. 15. Public humiliation of children suffering from bed-wetting and soiling and making them display wet and soiled sheets publicly to other children. 16. Children were constantly in fear. 17. Childrens emotional needs were neither understood nor responded to. 18. Favouritism. 19. Deprivation was made worse for children when they saw some others being treated as pets and getting better treatment. Sexual Abuse 20. Children were exposed to sexually abusive experiences by befriending families and employers with whom they were placed. 21. No proper assessment or supervision or aftercare arrangements were made to prevent these abuses. 22. Some care practices reflected insensitivity to adolescent sexuality. 23. Two former residents alleged cases of specific sexual abuse, one by a male member of staff and one by two female members of staff. 286 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
Neglect of Childrens Basic Needs 24. The total organisation of the childrens daily routine was contrary to their developing needs. 25. There was a failure at all levels to understand or meet their needs. 26. The general climate and regime were excessively harsh and abusive even by the standards of the time. 27. Expectations about children, for example, in relation to the length of time they were expected to concentrate or to stay silent or to work were not normal. 28. Particular forms of punishment, such as being left alone for hours in the furnace room, were particularly frightening for children who had experienced traumatic separations. 29. Generally, there was an absence of consistent and positive adults to whom supportive attachment could develop. 7.216 He interviewed Sr Alida and Sr Venetia, and put these allegations to them and noted their responses. The statements made by these two nuns are of real importance in the Inquiry because they come from people who worked in Goldenbridge over a combined period from 1942 until 1972. Mr Crowley formed the impression that Sr Alida was well prepared for the interview, and that she energetically attempted to direct the focus and pace of the discussion. Whilst she regularly stated that she could not remember events, this memory lapse was not consistent across the range of topics covered: it appeared to relate principally to material that was critical of her. She presented as a committed and energetic person, who appeared well defended psychologically. Mr Crowley found her very controlling in her interaction, but this may be related to her evident need to control her feelings. Mr Crowley reported as follows on his interview with Sr Alida: Sr Alida described her initiation to Goldenbridge as being told not to talk or take the attitude of Sr Felisa,18 who had been working with the children in care and had been critical of the service. Sr Alida recalls her early years in religious life as being dominated by fear. On reflection she cannot understand how she accepted so many demands and pressures without protest. She was trained by Sr Bianca, whom she describes as a very large powerful woman with a harsh aggressive and unpredictable personality. On reflection Sr Alida perceived the policies and practices of the 1950s and 1960s as being based on ignorance and failing to understand or care appropriately for the children. The use of former residents as staff was influenced by limited finance and tended to be limited to those who could not survive in aftercare. These were probably the most unsuitable people to care for vulnerable children. Older residents also cared for younger children in a semi formal system. She described much of the care as being gang care. Sr Alida identified Ms OShea19 as being one former resident who she understood was physically abusive.
18 19
7.217
7.218
7.219
287
Sr Alida, in effect, acknowledged that she continuously shouted and beat children too much and too long and used a stick routinely. She tended to go to bed very late and this led to children being kept on the landing. Sr Alida acknowledges being confronted by a parent for threatening to place her daughter in the tumble dryer, she confirmed childrens involvement in activities such as grass cutting with their hands but minimised the impact on children. Hunger and humiliation were acknowledged with regret, when discussed in general terms, however specific allegations tended to be met with long silences and eventual comments such as It could have happened accidentally. Sr Alida did not in effect reject the substance of the allegations. 7.220 7.221 Sr Venetia worked in Goldenbridge for many years and became Resident Manager in the 1960s. Mr Crowley conducted a lengthy interview with Sr Venetia. She was in some physical pain and discomfort because of her medical condition during the course of the interview, but she had no obvious difficulties with memory. Mr Crowley observed that the allegations were weighing heavily on Sr Venetia and she presented as resigned to the process of being interviewed. It was evident to Mr Crowley that she wished to be honest and forthright, but this was complicated somewhat by ambivalence and conflicting loyalties. Mr Crowley was satisfied that she made every effort to be honest, but it was clear to him that she had some difficulty in discussing issues such as sexual abuse and, in general, she did not volunteer new information. He said Sr Venetia communicated generally as being a somewhat fearful and isolated person. Mr. Crowley reported: Sr Venetia described the care system and organisational structure as having been established by Sr Bianca who died.... She initially described Sr Bianca as a hard and rigid woman but over the course of the interview it emerged that she viewed Sr Bianca as a paranoid schizophrenic who she considered was grossly insulting to adults and children and who in effect established a reign of terror. Sr Venetia communicated that subsequent managers maintained many of the features of the system as established, without substantial reflection but gradually modified and improved the care arrangements. Sr Venetia confirmed that the general atmosphere was excessively and consistently cruel even relative to standards of the time. She confirmed that fear of and actual physical beatings and verbal abuse was a matter of routine and that the general account of children, for example, waiting on the landings was accurate. Wetting was defined as a crime and, therefore, punishable through humiliation and physical beatings. Sr Venetia confirmed the allegations in relation to the tumble dryer and drinking from the toilet cistern. She also confirmed the bead making and that failure to obey rules was normally punishable by physical beatings. Sr Venetia made particular reference to one member of the lay staff, who was employed by Sr Bianca and subsequently fired. It was very evident that Sr Venetia was very afraid of this staff member and that the children were terrified of this person. Sr Venetia was quite fearful and reluctant in any discussion of sexual abuse. Essentially Sr Venetia confirmed that the essential elements of the allegations were correct and it was clear that she was of the view that almost anything could have occurred in a very unsafe environment. 7.223 Mr Crowley was guarded in his report. He cautioned that the sample of former pupils from whom he had obtained information was not randomly drawn, and he said that it could be expected that other women might have different experiences in relation to Goldenbridge. He warned that caution 288 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.222
would have to be exercised about any particular allegation that arose from early childhood experience, especially in regard to the identity of the perpetrator, and that there was a particular danger of confusion occurring between Sr Bianca and Sr Alida. He made clear that the allegations of the former residents had been listened to without challenge or cross-examination, and that his interviews with the Sisters were structured to maximise participation and effective communication, and that he consciously did not structure inquiries in a manner that might have been experienced as interrogatory or pressurising. He noted that Sr Alida initially requested, but subsequently cancelled, a second interview. He also advised that substantial information would continue to emerge as more former residents were interviewed. But, having set out all these cautions, Mr Crowley was satisfied that it was possible to establish a broad picture of the care practices in Goldenbridge during the period. 7.224 Mr Crowley ended his report with comments expressed as a Conclusion, followed by observations headed General Commentary: Conclusion Clear and consistent patterns can be identified in the allegations. The various accounts are consistent with each individual recalling personal experiences which reinforce the overall picture. The accounts are accompanied with appropriate feeling and a richness of detail. The accounts of subsequent life stories and relationship issues are consistent with the childhood experiences as described. Those former residents who have been interviewed have been experienced as credible. Some of the care practices may be understood by reference to the harsh historical context. Some actions experienced as abusive may not have had such intent, but were experienced as such due to insensitivity, ignorance and a failure to communicate. Other actions, such as forbidding liquids to bed wetters, may have had unintended consequences, such as children drinking from toilets at night. However, the broad nature and pattern of the allegations, which have in effect been confirmed by the sisters with management responsibility, namely physical and emotional abuse, are clearly accurate descriptions of the experiences of children in Goldenbridge. The care arrangements did not meet childrens basic needs. Children experienced physical and emotional abuse and were almost certainly exposed to sexual abuse. A number of the particular incidents described were violent and sadistic. The entire regime was unsafe and was characterised by a pervasive controlling of children through fear. General Commentary The children cared for in Goldenbridge had, prior to their reception into care, experienced gross neglect, deprivation and multiple trauma. They were often rejected by their immediate and extended family and by the broader society. They were admitted in large numbers to a service which could not even begin to provide an appropriate level of care. The physical environment was totally unstable and did not facilitate either supervision or privacy. The financial resources were grossly inadequate and determined the availability of personnel and material necessities. The Care System and culture was created by a dominant and dysfunctional personality. The religious sisters who subsequently held management responsibility lived in a tightly controlled and authoritarian world. Questioning was defined as arrogance and led to blaming of the individual. The most extreme example of this was Sr Alidas account of how her request to be released from teaching to concentrate on care was responded to by a decision to immediately transfer her to Co. Wicklow. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 289
No distinction appears to have been made between being a good religious and being a good childcare worker. The characteristics that were valued appear to have been obedience and dedication. No professional training was available to provide understanding or direction to service organisation or therapeutic interventions. Consequently the only available models were adopted with the corporal punishment in school becoming the beatings in the care centre and the daily routine and practices of religious life determining the day to day life of young children. Religious sisters and lay staff operated under constant pressure and clearly worked hard at an impossible task. The unsafe world of Goldenbridge developed a very particular culture which could not meet the needs of children. Very powerless people had enormous and immediate power over troubled and troublesome children. The abuse of the power and powerlessness was almost inevitable. Almost any kind of abusive incidents could have occurred. 7.225 Mr Crowleys views and conclusions are not part of the investigation process undertaken by the Committee. The apology issued by the Sisters of Mercy following the Dear Daughter programme was issued because Mr Crowley had advised in the way that he did. His report and his conclusions are, therefore, a part of the background to the investigation and to the positions taken by the Sisters of Mercy at different stages. However, the statements made by Sr Venetia and Sr Alida to Mr Crowley are different from the rest of the report because they have direct relevance to the investigation. They are records of the recollections and responses of persons who participated in the running of the Institution over a period of 30 years, and one of whom is now deceased. Mr Crowley completed his report in February 1996 and he stated that it was evident that a comprehensive inquiry by a multi-disciplinary team would be necessary which would be dependent on cooperation from both former residents and staff. The Sisters of Mercy explain in their Opening Statement that such an inquiry was impossible, as at that stage legal proceedings had been instituted by a number of former residents. The Congregation have asked the Investigation Committee to note the limitations of the Crowley report, which they identify as being four-fold: (1) The report was based on interviews with a small number of complainants; with Srs Alida and Venetia; and with Louis Lentin (producer of Dear Daughter). (2) There was little, if any, questioning of the complainants on the details of complaints. (3) There are no notes, transcripts or tapes of the interviews and there is therefore some difficulty in assessing precisely what was said. For example, Sr Alida explained to the Committee that she had always had problems with the account in the report of what she had said (emphasis added). [This is factually incorrect. Sr Alida did not allege that she was misquoted by Mr Crowley but did make a comment about the report as a whole: I have to say that......from the very beginning I was quite unhappy with Mr Crowleys report.] Sr Venetia never had an opportunity to give evidence to the Investigation Committee either in general or specifically in relation to the Crowley Report. (4) The information-gathering exercise was conducted very quickly and the conclusions were intended to be preliminary in nature. The exercise was intended to be a first step in a process, rather than a final conclusion. 290 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.226
7.227
7.228
The Sisters of Mercy note that the issues which were the subject matter of the Crowley Report are precisely those which fall within the Commissions remit and given the substantial bank of both oral and documentary material which the Investigation Committee has at its disposal they submit that it would be inappropriate for the Investigation Committee to place excessive reliance on the earlier preliminary report. Sr Alida has never challenged the accuracy of the statements attributed to her in the report. Had she done so, it would have been necessary for him to give evidence to the Committee. However, because the accuracy of Mr Crowleys recording of statements was not an issue, such evidence did not become necessary. The nature and circumstances of the Crowley report must be taken into account. The description of Sr Bianca given by both Sr Venetia and Sr Alida is consistent with accounts given by former residents and with the atmosphere described as pervading the institution during her time as resident manager. The comments quoted by Mr Crowley are also relevant to subsequent conditions about which the sisters spoke to him and tend to corroborate much of the oral testimony. Mr Crowley placed much of the blame for the conditions that pertained in Goldenbridge on ignorance, insensitivity and a failure to communicate. In this regard, it is interesting to look at the lecture entitled Institutional Management which was delivered by Sr Bianca in February 1953. This lecture indicates awareness of the special requirements of institutionalised children. The preparation for this lecture was done in consultation with Dr Anna McCabe, who in her Visitation Report of 1953 referred to regular meetings with Sr Bianca to discuss this lecture.
7.229
7.230
7.231

7.232 1. Overall, there was a high level of severe corporal punishment in Goldenbridge, resulting in a pervasive climate of fear in the Institution. 2. Beatings on the landing were a particularly cruel feature of the regime. 3. A parallel, unofficial system of punishment permitted every member of staff to use corporal punishment, which was often excessive. Some former residents, who were unsuited for outside employment, were retained as helpers and often administered severe punishment. 4. Children were beaten and humiliated for bed-wetting by both nuns and lay staff. 5. There is no evidence that a punishment book was kept in Goldenbridge, as was required by the regulations, and the absence of this important record should have been noticed and reported by the Department Inspector.
Rosary bead making

7.233 A particular feature of Goldenbridge was rosary bead making. Sometime in the mid-1940s, Sr Alida was approached by a businessman with the proposition that she might get the children to make rosary beads in return for payment. She saw this as a wonderful opportunity to acquire much-needed funds. In addition, she thought that it would keep the children occupied. So began an enterprise that was to continue until the 1960s. After school, at about 3.30pm, the children had something to eat and then went to the beads class. The location was Ms Dempseys classroom. The children were required to make decades of the rosary by putting the beads on lengths of wire. After each bead was positioned, the wire had to be looped and cut using pliers, and each bead then had to be attached to the next bead until all 10 beads were completed. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 291
7.234
7.235
The children each had a quota of 60 decades per day and 90 on a Saturday. This meant that, in the two hours of the weekday afternoon allocated for this work, 30 decades an hour had to be made by each child. Not surprisingly, few children reached their quota in the afternoon, and they had to return to the beads class in the evening and remain there until their 60 decades were completed. There is some controversy over the age at which children began to make beads, but it appears that, after they made their First Holy Communion, that is around seven years of age, children were expected to do this work. There were younger children in the room, who helped by picking up beads or by stringing the beads to leave them ready for the older girls to make the decade. Skill and dexterity were required. It would have taken some time to develop expertise. It was also painful, and witnesses described cuts and calluses on their hands as they tried to learn the work. A child starting would be slow at first, and might never acquire the necessary skill to be able to do it quickly. Sometimes, an older girl would help out a younger who was having difficulty in reaching the quota. Similarly, friends might help each other. In this way, the great majority of the children between seven and 16 years were occupied every day from Monday to Friday. For a variety of reasons, some children would not have to do beads, but the vast majority of children between the ages mentioned had to attend for this work. On Saturdays, the quota was 90 decades, and there were, of course, other chores (called charges) to be completed. Sr Alida conceded that it was difficult work: ... it wasnt soft work to be working with the pliers, it was not like needle work, you had to use energy to bend the wire.
7.236
7.237
7.238
7.239
7.240
When Sr Alida first attempted to make a decade of beads that the representative from the bead making company had given her, she admitted it took her an entire Saturday to make one decade. She also conceded that she had so much hardship making them. But thereafter, she said, it was like knitting. Different types of beads were used, and this made the task of stringing decades more difficult, depending on the type of bead. Horn beads and plastic beads posed no problem, but glass beads tended to break, and the mother of pearl beads were very difficult to string through. Bead making was supervised by one of the care staff or, more likely, by one of the care assistants, and it was often Ms Thornton. A child who had the necessary skill could complete her quota by teatime but not much before that. Others found difficulty in completing their assigned task. The work was inspected by the person in charge and sent back to be redone if it was not found satisfactory for one reason or another. Some beads were easier to work with than others, even for people who were good at the work. If the quota was not reached, the child was in trouble. It might happen that, even after going back to beads work after tea and staying there until perhaps 9pm or 9.30pm (some witnesses said even later), the quota would still not be achieved. In those circumstances, the evidence was that the child would be punished by being beaten. If the work was found unsatisfactory, the result was punishment at the hands of the person in charge of the beads room. It happened occasionally, when a dispatch was due to go to the factory, that some of the children had to stay as late as 10pm to complete an order and ensure that it met the required standard. In the Opening Statement delivered by Sr Helena ODonoghue, the bead making work was characterised as a pleasant activity to while away the time, which was enjoyed by the children 292 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.241
7.242
7.243
7.244
and often done to music from the radio. A picture was painted of a busy workroom, where happy children chatted as they carried out this routine work. It is apparent that this description is based on information from Sr Alida. 7.245 This description of bead making by Sr Helena was inaccurate. The work was hard. The hours were long. While some girls were well capable of doing the work once they had got used to it, for many others it was difficult to master the dexterity required. There was pressure to achieve the quota and to keep to the required standard of work. The work could fail in a variety of ways, including obvious ones like not having the right number of beads in a decade. Less obvious and more difficult to avoid were errors such as having inconsistent-sized loops of wire joining the beads. The atmosphere was not the pleasant group activity imagined by Sr Helena and remembered by Sr Alida. The essential requirement was of quietly, if not silently, getting on with the work; the children did converse but mostly in whispers, and the radio was turned on only occasionally while this work was being done. The fact that punishment hung over the activity, for failure to achieve either quality or quantity, inevitably affected the atmosphere. The work was relentless, with demanding quotas. This was hard work over long hours during six days a week, for children obliged to do the work with no reference to their capacity to manage it. Sr Venetia in her interview with Mr Crowley confirmed that: the bead making and that failure to obey rules were normally punishable by physical beatings. 7.248 The money made from bead making was considerable. Sr Alida gave evidence of being able to produce 1,000 to contribute to the sum of 3,000 in the 1950s for the purchase of the holiday house at Rathdrum. The best estimates as to the earnings are that an income of approximately 50 per week was achieved by this activity. Management saw this work as a practical and useful occupation that kept the girls out of trouble during many hours of the week, when they would otherwise have needed amusement or diversion or other occupation. Instead, it conditioned them to drudgery, with the added threat of being beaten for failure. The authorities lost all sense of importance about bead making. It became a relentless production line. Sr Alidas enthusiasm became obsession. Occupation became drudgery. The pursuit of extra money by way of profit from the bead making became exploitation. All this was carried out under the threat of being beaten for failure.
7.246
7.247
7.249
7.250
Evidence of complainants
7.251 Over half of the complainants who testified spoke of the hardship associated with stringing decades of beads. From their evidence, it was an activity they clearly did not enjoy and, instead, viewed it as a chore. The daily quota system of each child having to make 60 decades each evening was, according to many of the witnesses, a source of stress and pressure. They said that assembling the beads into decades was hard work, which resulted in calluses, welts and cuts on their hands from the use of the pliers and the steel wire. Some of the complainants recalled that they commenced this activity at the age of seven, after their First Communion. Initially, they were involved in stringing the beads on a wire for the older girls, before progressing to making the decades. One witness recounted her introduction to bead making as follows: CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 293
7.252
The beads class was something that you were introduced to after Communion. In the early stages the younger children would be asked to pick the beads up off the floor or maybe wire, anything that had fallen. You would also be asked to string beads for the older girls. This allowed them to move quickly to reach their quota, which was 60 decades per evening. 7.253 Some witnesses spoke of the difficulty in reaching their daily quota and being punished for not attaining it. The punishment could take the form of a slap there and then, by whoever was supervising the class, or sometimes they would be sent to the landing to await their punishment. Ms Thornton and Ms OShea at different times took charge of supervising the class, and both were considered to be violent individuals. A witness described it as follows: ... you had little pliers and wire and the wire was constantly digging into your skin and you just couldnt work fast enough to reach the quota every day. We were lined up every night, those who hadnt reached the quota and beaten. 7.254 This witness was regularly punished for not reaching her quota, and eventually, when the pressure became too much for her, on one occasion, she resorted to stealing another girls beads to avoid another beating. The other girl was punished instead of her. She said: ... I had been beaten every night for not making enough ... On one occasion ... I just couldnt stand it anymore so I stole a handful of beads from the girl across the aisle when she was out of the room. When the nun came round she said, I did them, I did them, somebody stole them, the nun wouldnt believe her, took her to the front of the room and beat her. It has haunted me all my life ... 7.255 A common complaint referred to by many of the witnesses was the tense atmosphere of the beads room, which was generated by the pressure they were placed under to reach their daily quota. The tension resulted in the work being carried out in silence. A witness described the tense atmosphere as follows: ... There was always somebody ready to shout at you and come down and hit you ... you werent really meant to talk to one another, you did of course, you whispered, but it was all the time you were sort of watching your back. 7.256 Again and again, the witnesses spoke of the silence in the room. One witness said: We all sat down and made our rosary beads. We had a little box and we made our rosary beads. It was work. We werent allowed to talk, we didnt talk. We only talked when she left the room. Whoever, was there in that room, when they left, we talked. When they came back we stopped. We had to work because we had a quota to do, we had so many to do. 7.257 Another witness said: ... there was a radio in it and PJ OConnor used to tell a story once a week on a Wednesday. Most times the radio wasnt on and you had to do it in silence. 7.258 Two of the witnesses, who came forward at the request of the Sisters of Mercy to give evidence of their time in Goldenbridge, also spoke of the silence and tension in the room. One such witness said: The beads class, I dont know why I always felt everything was sort of so quiet. I dont remember really much chat in the beads class. We probably whispered to one another but I dont remember conversations with anybody ... I think we were too busy, I took all my time to make them anyway, we were so busy making them so I wouldnt have had that much time to do anything. 294 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.259
The second positive witness said that she could get into trouble for talking loudly in beads class but she could talk to the person beside her as long as it was done quietly.
7.260 Sr Alida described the beads room as a room of relaxation rather than pressure. She said that there was a radio or record player that was played in the room, and the children sang along and chatted amongst themselves. She did not consider the work difficult, and stated that it didnt take a lot of stress doing the work and she felt that the work was comparable to a knitting class. Sr Alida denied that children were beaten for not reaching their quota and claimed that there was no difficulty in making the quota in the beads class. She admitted that it was her responsibility to check the quality and quantity of the decades of beads before they were returned to the factory. If the beads were not properly completed, they would be sent back and it was nasty, to get them back to be repaired, very nasty. This, she said, resulted in her staying up odd nights with children helping her to finish the work to go back to the factory. Sr Alida began the beads class with the permission of the Resident Manager, Sr Bianca. She explained that it was important for the children to have something to do: My chief problem was that the children had nothing in the world to do after they left school in the evening, there was no occupation of any kind. They went to the play hall and they shouted and roared and pulled each other around from 3.30 until 5.45, we were in the convent at that time. 7.263 Sr Alida also viewed the bead making as a means of generating extra income for the School. At the time when she was approached to assemble decades of rosaries, she said Goldenbridge was subject to considerable financial restraint, and she saw the bead making as an opportunity to increase their financial income: ... I viewed this offer as an opportunity to increase the income of the home for the benefit of the children. I believed that this could provide us with a source of income to improve the welfare of the children and to provide them with little luxuries which were not available to us at that time. 7.264 Sr Alida said that the money from the beads was used to pay for Irish dancing classes, old-time dancing, dancing shoes and costumes for the children, sweets, yearly trips to Butlins, and day trips to Portmarnock during the summer. She also said that the children were given pocket money out of the proceeds of the bead money. These were the luxuries that were provided by the beads money, and everything that the children had as extras came from that money. The bead making became a very profitable enterprise, generating a weekly income of at least 50 for the School. Sr Alida opened a Post Office savings account for the proceeds from the bead making, which she controlled, and Sr Bianca never queried what she did with it. The money made from the beads over a 20-year period was considerable. Sr Alida asserted that the money earned was spent on the children: ... All those things did not come from the allowance the Government paid for the children, it came from the childrens own hands ... the beads bought those things for them. 7.266 The money from the beads provided one-third of the cost of the purchase of a holiday home for the children in Rathdrum in 1954. The entire cost of the holiday home was 3,000. The Investigation Committee instructed Mazars, Financial Consultants to review the accounts of Goldenbridge. They confirmed the figure of at least 50 per week. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 295
7.261
7.262
7.265
7.267
Prior to introducing bead making, Sr Alida had a knitting class where girls made their own jumpers. This work was superseded by bead making, although a very small number of bigger girls continued to do knitting. Sr Gianna recalled that Ms Thornton, a former resident of the Institution, often supervised the beads class. Although she was of the view that Ms Thornton was kind to the children, she conceded that she had a bad temper and that she heard her shouting and roaring at the children in the class. Ms Garvin remembered Ms OShea, another lay worker and former resident, supervising the beads class. During her time in Goldenbridge from the early 1960s to the mid-1970s, she went to the beads class most days before teatime, where she remembered seeing the girls chatting to each other and that music was playing. She insisted that the atmosphere in the beads room was pleasant, and she never saw a child being beaten in the beads room. There was, however, evidence that Ms OShea was violent and irascible.
7.268
7.269
The Congregations position

7.270 In contrast to the reminiscence of some of the Sisters that the bead making was a pleasurable activity, the Congregation recognised that learning the skill of bead making: ... could have caused fingers to be tender or skin broken initially, and trying to finish a quota must at times also have put unfair pressure on some children. We recognise that this activity is remembered with particular bitterness by some former residents and we deeply regret that something which was intended to be helpful was experienced as harmful and unhappy. 7.271 In its written Submissions, it accepted that it was not an enjoyable activity, as there was a lot of pressure to get the work done: For those who were engaged in the process, the activity was undoubtedly experienced as a compulsory activity which was not enjoyable and had to be, at best, endured. While there was the radio to listen to, talking was muted and the main aim was to get ones work done. There was clearly a pressure to get the work done; work was on occasion rejected as falling short of standards and there was a requirement to complete a quota. 7.272 The Congregation stated that the purpose of bead making was twofold: firstly, to provide useful occupation for the children after school; and, secondly, to provide extra funds for pocket money, recreational activities and equipment for the children. But they recognised that there was too much emphasis on occupation as a means of management and control of the children.
Conclusions on bead making

7.273 1. Bead making became an industrial activity that was pursued obsessively; the work was difficult and uncomfortable and it was painful for children especially those who lacked dexterity and speed. 2. The quota system made the work onerous and pressurised and a source of stress and anxiety. 3. Supervision by lay workers or nuns to ensure quantity and quality on pain of punishment created work conditions that would not have been tolerated in factories. 4. Using the children for this work deprived them of normal childhood recreation that was necessary for emotional, social and psychological development. 296 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
Sexual abuse
Allegations against a caretaker and others in the School
7.274 There is only one documented case of a child having been sexually abused in Goldenbridge. The incident occurred in 1962, when a caretaker in the School was convicted of indecently assaulting a girl. The girl who had been sexually assaulted by the caretaker reported the matter to Sr Alida, who immediately informed the Garda. The caretaker was dismissed from his employment and was subsequently prosecuted and convicted. He received a three-month suspended sentence. The Sisters of Mercy confirmed that the only definite knowledge they had regarding sexual abuse in Goldenbridge related to the 1962 incident. However, the Investigation Committee heard other complaints against this man. One complainant alleged that she had been raped by him. She alleged that the rape had taken place around 1960, when she was 11 years old, and two years before he was reported to the Garda. She said she did not report this incident to anyone in Goldenbridge, as she was afraid of being sent to a reformatory. The alleged incident occurred in a room off a dormitory where he was fixing a sash window and she was sent to assist him. One witness, who did not herself allege abuse by the caretaker, said of him: It was common knowledge that Mr Hurley20 was at children in the laundry. 7.279 A small number of other complaints related to sexual interference by older girls on younger girls and by persons to whose care the children were entrusted at weekends.
7.275
7.276
7.277
7.278
Allegations against foster families

7.280 One witness spoke of being abused by a member of a family to whom she was sent out to at the weekend. This family, she felt, was not vetted. She says she was fondled by an outsider. Another witness also spoke of being abused by a man in a family she was sent out to for a weekend. She did not want to go to this family again and, when she tried to explain to the nun in charge, she boxed the face off her. Another witness said she was abused by an uncle of a family she was sent to. She alleged that this occurred in the garden of the familys home. She also referred to an incident of attempted rape by the son of another family she was sent out to in Dublin. She was left alone in the house with him, and he came into her bedroom and threw her on the bed and attempted to rape her.
7.281
7.282
Allegations of sexual abuse on young boys

7.283 A witness alleged that he was abused by a lay person who slept in the dormitory with the children. He stated: I was made to play with her for what seemed to go on for some time and whilst doing this I was in fear of the nuns catching me and if I was caught being out of bed I would get the strap or I would get a slapping or a beating. This went on for some time. 7.284 He went on to describe that the nature of the play was sexual.
20
297
7.285 7.286
He felt that he could not tell anyone about what was happening to him. A complainant who spent a few months in Goldenbridge in the late 1960s said that older girls had sexually abused him when he was aged eight. He recalled being brought into a room with a bed in it, and there were three women or older girls in the room. He was not certain whether they were older girls or women who worked in the School: I was put sitting on the edge of the bed and the covers were pulled down and one of the girls was exposed. I was told to feel her private parts, then I was told to feel another one of the women or girls private parts. My memory is this happened on more than one occasion.

7.287 1. Sexual abuse was not a significant issue in the investigation of Goldenbridge, but there was an incident in 1962 which was dealt with promptly. 2. Management did not consider the risk of sexual abuse when sending children to foster families.
Emotional abuse
7.288 It is instructive to look at the topic of emotional abuse, using a contemporary source outlining the informed opinion at the time. In 1953, Sr Bianca, the Resident Manager of Goldenbridge, delivered a lecture to a conference on childcare management run by the Archbishop of Dublin. She was regarded as somewhat of an expert, having at that stage managed Goldenbridge Industrial School for 11 years. Sr Bianca collaborated with the Department of Educations Medical Inspector, Dr McCabe, in preparing for the lecture. Her lecture indicated an enlightened and progressive approach to institutional management, in particular she made the following points: (a) Children from underprivileged backgrounds should be met with sympathy and gentleness. (b) Drastic remedies for head lice such as shaving childrens heads should not be necessary particularly when there were remedies on the market at a very reasonable price. (c) Children should be divided into small groups, including at meal times, to promote an intimate family atmosphere. Formal marshalling and regimentation must be avoided. (d) Whilst there should be an emphasis on domestic training there was no reason why girls should not follow a commercial or other career path if they had the necessary talent. (e) Every child should help with small jobs and chores about the home. They should be encouraged to be creative and arts and crafts teachers employed. (f) Dressing the children uniformly should be discouraged. (g) Children should be allowed a considerable amount of supervised freedom. They should be allowed to go to the local shop and older girls permitted to go into town on the bus to run errands. (h) A large playground and hall was a necessity. A field for sports should be made available. Senior girls should have their own sitting room. Music should be encouraged, both playing instruments and singing as well as listening to music on the radio. Dancing should also be encouraged. Caring for pets was another useful occupation for children. 298 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
(i) The Manager should possess skill and judgement have a strong personality without being overbearing and dictatorial ... and strictly impartial. Those charged with the care of such children should have a keen interest in their work and possess the requisite experience and knowledge of psychology. 7.289 The Sisters of Mercy noted in their Opening Statement that this lecture tells us much of the thinking and practice at Goldenbridge. The Investigation Committee heard complaints regarding emotional abuse in the evidence from complainants. All of the complainants came to Goldenbridge in harrowing circumstances. Some had lost a parent, and the surviving parent was either not able to cope or was deemed by the State to be unsuitable. Others were abandoned. Some came from desperately poor families, and others were born out of wedlock to mothers who felt that society left them with no option but to place their child in care. Some of those committed were babies; others had spent a substantial part of their childhood with their families. Most of the children were heartbroken and terrified on entering Goldenbridge. They all shared a vulnerability that made them emotionally needy. Complainants lived in an atmosphere of constant fear of arbitrary punishment for misdemeanours and of being humiliated. Despite always being surrounded by people, many expressed an overwhelming sense of isolation and loneliness. Many of the complainants stated that they are left with deep psychological scars as a result of their time in Goldenbridge. Witnesses account of their experiences in Goldenbridge indicate a very high level of emotional abuse in that Institution. One witness spoke of arriving at Goldenbridge as a six-year-old child in the late 1940s after her mother had died of TB. She described the experience as very very harrowing: she said she was stripped of her clothes and that all her hair was cropped. When asked whether she had understood at the time why her clothes were being taken from her, she replied: No. You werent told. You were just used and abused ... you were disposable ... They didnt give a stuff about what you were, whether you were a child, whether you were breathing, whether you were living, what you were feeling. Nobody bothered about a child. You were just a disposable item. Thats the way it seemed to me. Thats the way I have carried all through my life. I dont like what I have carried all through my life. It has left me vulnerable, raw and it has affected the whole of my life. 7.295 She said: I used to scurry around. I used to try to dodge and weave to get away from the beatings, the abuse. You didnt. You were helpless. Wherever you were you were a helpless victim. You couldnt get away from them. They used to clatter you, they used to batter you. The names you were called. The stuff you had to go through. The thing was you were always so alone. There was never anybody there for you. Nobody was there this is what I find so hard to tell you. You were lumped together and you were one of a many, many ... 7.296 When asked to describe what she was fearful of in Goldenbridge she said, what they would do to you. You knew that you could never get away from their cruelty. You couldnt escape and take yourself off. She said she used to lie in her bed at night and wished that she didnt wake up in the morning. She said that she would sob her heart out crying for her mother. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 299
7.290
7.291
7.292
7.293
7.294
7.297
7.298
Another complainant was eight years of age when she was put into Goldenbridge with her younger sister in the early 1950s. She said that her mother and father had separated and that her father had abandoned the family. She was living with her grandmother when, she believes, the NSPCC made an application to court to have both her and her younger sister committed to Goldenbridge. She said: We werent prepared in any way, we werent told we thought it was an outing which was very rare anyway for us ... the next thing we knew my mother and my grandmother were leaving, they were leaving. We didnt know what was going to happen to us. Of course we were screaming trying to get out through the door with them and the nun just pulled us back.
7.299
This complainant said that her grandmother used to come on Wednesday afternoons to visit her. Visiting day was Saturday, and her grandmother was not allowed into the School. She said that one of the nuns would come to her and say, Go down to the gate, your grandmother is there. She said that she went to a remand home in England after she had left Goldenbridge and that the environment there was completely different. She said that the convent was run by a French Order, and their whole attitude towards the children was that they had some value. They were not sadistic in any way and, although the regime there was strict by todays standard, you were punished for actually doing something wrong. She said that the children were also allowed to play, even though they had chores to do and laundry duties; nevertheless, there was no forced labour: We actually liked the nuns there. When asked to elaborate on the contrast between the English home and Goldenbridge, this complainant said, the stark contrast was that we were allowed to be children, we didnt feel that we were despised. She said that the living conditions and the food were better and that, although corporal punishment was used and administered with a cane, she could count on the fingers on one hand the times it happened to her. One complainant was born to an unmarried mother and lived with her grandmother in Dublin. She said she recalls getting dressed up nicely one day and being brought to a big building from which she was put into a van or a car and taken away screaming to Goldenbridge. She said that her main contact when she went in to Goldenbridge was with her grandmother, who came up every second Sunday or every Sunday to visit her: All I remember was crying, sometimes I was happy to see her and other times I wasnt because it made me fret, want to go home. Why was I being left here?. Another complainant, who spent 15 years in Goldenbridge from the mid-1950s, said that she was very affected by being called ugly by the nuns and staff while she was there. She said that she used to keep her head down all the time because she believed that she was so ugly. She spoke of a lack of confidence and very low self-esteem that has dogged her all her life. It had caused problems in her relationships with people over the years. In particular, she said it had impacted on the way she looked after her own children. She treated them the way she had been treated. She has since apologised to her family. She said she now knew that you must always show children love, Lift a child up, give the child love, reassure her that she is so pretty or that he is so pretty. It means so much in life, showing an individual love. This complainant was born to an unmarried mother and had little or no contact with her family throughout her life. She found it very difficult to cope with the outside world after leaving Goldenbridge and felt ill-equipped and ill-prepared. 300 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.300
7.301
7.302
7.303
7.304
7.305
Her dislike of the Institution and her sense of unease at her treatment there were clear from a letter she wrote in 1967 to Sr Venetia. In that letter she said, referring to the suggestion that she should return to Goldenbridge because she got into trouble in England: You know what kind of trouble I got into, I believe you wanted to have me back, but I refused to go because I know what I would have to face. I have faced enough with you all there, and you know that I did not like it there. Every time I went out you took a bad impression. Well, Sister, the mothers here try to do all they can to help me, especially the Mother in charge. She cannot help me anymore and I do appreciate all she did. Also, we call them mothers because they treat us as if they were our mothers.
7.306
This is quite a significant letter. It was written by this complainant to the one person who had been a mother substitute to her for her entire childhood. It is a sad reflection on the relationship she had with her carers in Goldenbridge. This letter was not the result of any media campaign, or any contamination: it is a contemporaneous document written by a very young girl who had just left the Institution. Another witness, who entered Goldenbridge as a small baby and spent 13 years there in the 1950s and 1960s, said that her great problem was fear, even after she left Goldenbridge. She said she always felt very lonely and that she couldnt really mix and was bullied a lot. One complainant, who was committed to Goldenbridge at one year old in the early 1950s and remained there for 15 years, said: None of us got loved, none of us. When I look back I wonder how I grew up at all. It was the most strangest place for a child to be reared. The nuns were cruel but they didnt know half of it because they use to be up saying their prayers. The people they had looking after us was horrible people.
7.307
7.308
7.309
This complainant noticed an improvement in Goldenbridge towards the end of her time there in the 1960s. Another witness was five years of age when she was admitted into Goldenbridge in the mid1950s. Her mother developed post-natal depression after the eighth child in the family was born and was admitted to St Brendans Hospital. She specifically mentioned emotional abuse as being the biggest hurt that she experienced in Goldenbridge. She spoke of name-calling and jeering, and said that it came from staff members and carers who were past pupils who had been kept on as part of the staff. She said it was very, very abusive, and the comments centred on the fact that her mother had had a mental breakdown and was in a psychiatric hospital. She said that the one person who stood out the most for referring to it a great deal was Sr Venetia. She spoke of practices in Goldenbridge, such as underwear inspections and a lack of any preparation for menstruation, as contributing to the lack of confidence that all the girls experienced. She said that the effect of their institutionalisation had devastated her family. Her three sisters all suffered from serious psychological problems. She was particularly traumatised by the memory of her younger sister, who she claimed was physically abused in Goldenbridge. Another witness spent nine years in Goldenbridge from the mid-1950s in similar circumstances to the previous complainant. Her mother was placed in a mental institution following a breakdown. She said that one of the hardest things about being institutionalised at seven years of age was the sense of isolation. She spoke about being jeered at by Sr Venetia and by workers because of CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 301
7.310
7.311
7.312
7.313
7.314
the fact that her mother was in a mental institution. She said that they were all called mad, especially by Sr Venetia. This had a very deep psychological impact on her. 7.315 Another witness spoke of the great sadness caused by her mothers mental breakdown that resulted in the family having to be placed in care. She gave a poignant description of her relationship with her father throughout her time in Goldenbridge. Her father was a timid man who held the nuns who ran the School in great esteem. She said that he constantly hoped that he would be able to take all his children out so that they could be home together. However, she said that she knew intuitively that this would not happen. She also said that she never asked about her mother. She knew that it affected her father to speak about her, and therefore she never mentioned her. She said that he was very uncomfortable and that she felt like his protector. This child developed an extremely severe respiratory condition, which she claims was not properly medicated by the staff in Goldenbridge. She described the atmosphere in Goldenbridge as being grey and barren, and said that she had no possessions of her own when she was there. However, she did not tell her father what was going on in Goldenbridge or that they were being bullied, because he was like a co-dependant. She also protected her younger sister who was a bed-wetter, and used to try and replace her sheet early in the morning before the wet sheet was discovered. She was aware, even while she was in Goldenbridge, that the fact that her father visited her was very important, and she was terrified that anything would happen to him. This complainant has lived in England for a long number of years and said that nobody knows about Goldenbridge, because she has never spoken about it, even to friends that she has known for 25 years. She said that she constantly feels no good. She said that the journey that she has had to follow to put herself together, and not have a sense of being a marked person in an orphanage with the stigma and abuse, has been a very long one. It has cost her a lot emotionally, physically and mentally. She felt sorry about her father. He may have known what the children were suffering in Goldenbridge, but could do nothing about it. She said that, if it had been her, she would have been challenging the nuns, but her father was intimidated by them and could not question what was going on. She asked why would a man, who was basically a good man, feel so intimidated in dealing with the nuns in Goldenbridge who were caring for his children. Another complainant spoke about the contrast between Goldenbridge and a care home in England. She left Goldenbridge at 13, and went to live with her mother in England. Her mother was quite abusive and the complainant ran away from home. She ended up in a childrens home in England. She said at first she had thought she had gone back to Goldenbridge again, but she found it a lovely place with lovely people. She said she tasted food that she had never tasted and she remembers how the tables were set. Sometimes she played up there, and she would not be given pocket money if she did that, and the people in charge would bring her into the sitting room and talk to her. She said that they were lovely and that she has great admiration for all of them. She recalled that there were sitting rooms in the care home in England. Whereas in Goldenbridge there were no comfortable chairs or sofas, only wooden chairs and tables. She said that the nuns were really not involved in the day-to-day activity in Goldenbridge. When she was there, it was run principally by the lay staff and older girls. She recalled Sr Venetia, who would have been the only nun who did have contact with the Institution, but the other nuns were only seen in church: They used to come down now and again around Christmas to watch a film ... which was the only time you ever saw Venetia laugh. They never acknowledged you. They were there at that side, here we were at this side. You might as well have put a bar there 302 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.316
7.317
7.318
7.319
7.320
was no way they were ever going to talk to you. Even in the church, there were all these so called holy people, they never acknowledged you. 7.321 A witness who was in Goldenbridge for nine years in the 1960s described her time there: I mean the first sentence that always comes to me is that it was a reign of terror, it was a terrifying place for any child to be. Speaking for myself I found it utterly terrifying, it was vicious, it was so full of fear, it was so full of tension. It was indescribably terrifying. 7.322 When she left, she described how she felt: If I start at the beginning, I was completely and utterly depressed, completely unfit to function in the world outside. Within months of leaving Goldenbridge I was in a psychiatric hospital ... I have lived through some of the darkest, darkest, blackest, blackest depressions imaginable. I have lived with shame, absolute abject shame. I felt like a nobody, worthless, a nuisance, a waste of space on the planet, utterly. I hated every adult who walked the planet ... I was bitter, I was angry. I was broken. I tried to be happy if that makes sense, I really did try. I tried to be normal, but you couldnt be. People would say to you, Where are you from? I would say, did I ask you where you came from. I would say, No, Mind your own business, dont ask me. 7.323 7.324 She said she found this question so difficult to deal with that she often lied. She found filling in application forms, which required parents names and occupations and where she was from, to be deeply upsetting and shaming for her. She said that, although Sr Venetia wasnt anything as bad as Sr Alida, she was very capable of battering children and, in particular, she was verbally very cruel to children: She was very good at calling you names, and Sr Venetia was capable of being very cruel to particular children ... She was very good at humiliation, Ill tell you that, she was very good at that. 7.326 She spoke of particular girls who suffered humiliation at the hands of Sr Venetia. One particular girl suffered from perspiration, and Sr Venetia used make her strip off to her underclothes every day and wash in front of all her peers. She said that Sr Venetia had particular girls whom she treated as favourites, and they were never beaten and got special treatment from her. Many witnesses complained of the name-calling that they endured during their time in Goldenbridge. They spoke of being called worse than the soldiers who crucified Christ, or being called filthy and dirty. Other witnesses referred to verbal insults of being called fat and ugly, being called crackpot and mad. Other witnesses made reference to the hurt caused by the namecalling and the degradation that accompanied it. For a number of complainants, one of the most difficult memories was the treatment they recalled their siblings receiving while in Goldenbridge. These witnesses suffered greatly, where those siblings went on to have serious psychiatric problems or even where they had subsequently died. They felt that, in some way, they might have been able to help the sibling had they spoken to them more openly about their experiences in Goldenbridge. One witness, who spent seven years in Goldenbridge after the death of her mother, described trying to protect her younger brothers in Goldenbridge. They were bed-wetters, and she was very upset when they were punished for wetting the bed. She couldnt bear to see them slapped, because she knew that they couldnt help doing it. Even though she was just a child herself, she could see that beating children for wetting the bed was cruel and unfair. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 303
7.325
7.327
7.328
7.329
7.330
She visited her younger brothers in another industrial school because she believed that, if the authorities knew that somebody from outside the Institution was watching, it would be easier on the boys there. This was an impression she got from Goldenbridge, where she felt that anybody who had a parent or relative in touch with the School got an easier time. She visited her younger brothers in the Industrial School until she was 18. At that stage, her father had returned. Eventually, the family were all reunited and, to this day, are very close. She was nearly 10 years of age when she went into Goldenbridge and she had a clear memory of life before the Institution. She felt that it gave her a bit of a foundation and that she was luckier than children who had no mothers or fathers. She used to fantasise about a real home, and used to tell stories about things that happened on the outside. One of her brothers spoke to the Investigation Committee and confirmed that his sister did protect both him and his other brothers and sisters while they were in Goldenbridge. Another witness, who had a good experience of family life before being admitted to Goldenbridge at the age of nine following the death of her mother, said that her overall impression of the Institution was of horror and fear. Her father died in 1967, but whilst he was alive he had regular contact with the family. He visited every second Sunday, but he would often arrive after he had been drinking. She recalled how Sr Eleonora21 and one of the lay staff would speak to him in a degrading way. His children would plead and beg him to take them out of Goldenbridge, and his famous saying was keep your chin up ... its not whats on the outside, its the inside that counts. She said the family were very poor. Their mother was a lovely woman. She believed that the fact that their father visited them regularly spared her from a lot of the abuse that the other children were subjected to. One of her great dislikes in Goldenbridge was that some of the girls were treated as favourites and pets. She spoke about being beaten and abused if underwear was dirty, and also spoke of the humiliation of being lined up naked to be painted with a treatment for scabies. She was quite clear that the way in which this treatment was carried out was designed to maximise the humiliation of the children, particularly of older girls. Some of the witnesses at the Goldenbridge hearings were men who had been sent there as young boys. One man spoke of the loss of family contact as a result of being placed in Goldenbridge at two years of age in the early 1960s. He said: Goldenbridge was a tough place as a young little boy. When I think of my own kids and I think that if anybody hurt them I would destroy their lives. That is the only true way I have got of reflecting on what happened to me as a kid growing up.
7.331
7.332
7.333
7.334
7.335
This complainant said that it was only when he had his own children that he realised how harsh his own upbringing had been. They received no individual care and were just herded around. One witness gave a very personal account of a tragedy that occurred during her time in Goldenbridge. She was there for 10 years from the mid-1960s, following the break-up of her parents marriage. Within a year of her committal to Goldenbridge, her two older brothers died in an accident. She and two of her sisters were called down to Sr Venetias office, where she found two of their uncles, together with a lay teacher. They were told about the deaths and they were given two bulls eye sweets each. They were then sent back to the recreation room. She said that: I was sent back down to the rest of the children. Nobody took me aside and put their arms around me in any shape or form, as God is my witness that is the truth, that is the truth.
21
7.336
7.337
304
Nobody gave me any comfort other than the bit of comfort we tried to give each other as a family. 7.338 The pain of loss and separation was experienced not only by the children. For many parents, placing their children in care was an act of desperation. Another complainant entered Goldenbridge in the mid-1960s, aged five years of age, with his older sister, following the separation of his mother and father. There were six children at the time, and only the eldest sister accompanied her mother to England after the separation. Initially, his father was trying to look after the remaining five children, but they eventually ended up in court and being committed to Goldenbridge. Originally, he was committed for a 10-year period, but his mother kidnapped both him and his sister and brought them back to England. She came originally to bring them on a day out, but then went to collect his two older brothers who were in an industrial school and then travelled across to England with the four of them. The younger sister was left in another institution, because she was too young to be released on a day outing. His mother visited the youngest girl until she was old enough, by which time the courts released her and the family was reunited. A letter which this complainants mother wrote in the mid-1960s and sent to the Christian Brothers is relevant: Dear Sir, I would like to inform you that I have now taken my children [X and Y] from your care without your consent. I have also taken [A and B] from Goldenbridge convent. All four are now in England with me. I have phoned [the] Artane School from England to say that I took the children with me. I could not phone Goldenbridge as I do not know their phone number, but I am letting them know by post. Please dont blame me too much for what I have done in taking this advantage, but I could not see my children unhappy no longer. I have for one year done my best to try to get the children together but everything failed because I respected the law. Now, I have taken it into my own hands and if I am sent to jail I shall do the same again when I come out. The Justice said I could have my children when I get a home for them. He did not say I would have to have my husbands consent so I did what I could to get the home for them, but I would not consider asking my husband for a letter of consent. If he wants them he can fight for them from me. But he wont as he has not been to see them only twice since they were committed ... 12 months ago. Yours truly,
7.339
7.340
7.341 Sr Alida was asked whether the children were shown love and affection. She stated that there was no doubt that the pre-school children were shown love and affection by her, by staff in charge of the nursery, and by an older girl who would be assigned to keep an eye on them. She argued that the children of school-going age were not showered with the same level of affection as would be the norm today: Looking back still I would have to say that I never had a feeling that I had a roomful of 150 sad and frightened children. I couldn't say that from my heart. That doesn't mean that there could be children very sad unknown to me. I didn't know what was inside any child's heart or in their head. We knew nothing at all about most of the families. Any research we did, it didn't get us very far, their lives family wise was very bleak. I, at the time, wasn't CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 305
didn't take into consideration what state they were in. As teenagers or as babies. Babies you could compensate, the babies we loved and we hugged and we gave every kind of care to babies. They got the best. Any baby that came to our care, I can only say they got the best. When it came to children from 12 years upwards, I never knew what was inside their hearts or their minds. 7.342 Sr Gianna stated that she was very aware of the lack of emotional care for the children in Goldenbridge: I would be very conscious of that when children came in from a family that had just lost a mother and how sad they would be. I would be very moved when I would see that because it was awful for them to come into this big school with this big crowd of children and to be just one of a group after being in a family setting. 7.343 She explained: You would be very conscious of 150 children not having the hug and the love and the care of someone who really loved them closely. You would be very conscious of that. You wouldn't witness any of that. In our time you didn't do that, you didn't come near or hug people. That would have been part of our training as well. In hindsight, I think it was a good thing because I might have been accused of something very different if I had hugged or loved, as you might want to do. 7.344 She stated that Sr Alida was also aware of how vulnerable these children were. She recalled one little boy who had lost his mother and was committed to Goldenbridge. Sr Alida asked her to keep an eye on him as she worked in the workroom: I remember him coming up, standing beside me, I was at the machine working, and I just remember him standing there and his little hand coming into mine every so often because he was so shy and sad. 7.345 Ms Kearney worked as a teacher in Goldenbridge for over 30 years. When she was asked about the atmosphere in Goldenbridge. She responded: Not a happy place, I was glad to get out of it. When you have the children sulking, shouting at each other across the room and shouting at you and calling you all kinds of names it's very hard to put up with it. It wasn't a happy atmosphere, no. There were some lovely children in it, that never gave you a bit of trouble, you felt like hugging them but you didn't, you couldn't, because the bold ones would take it out of them, "teacher's pet".
Position of the Sisters of Mercy

7.346 The Sisters of Mercy accept that institutional life in Goldenbridge had many negative features, which they listed as follows:

306
The large size of the institution and the number of children who lived there gave little prospect of a replication of a familys love and nurture. The low ratio of staff to children, which for most of the period under review was approximately 1 staff member for every 30 children. The absence of childcare training for Sisters and lay staff. The capitation system of funding, together with the level of funding, led to difficult financial constraints and choices. The regimental nature of institutional life where restriction on freedom of movement operated well beyond school hours and a lack of privacy, particularly in the early years. The emphasis on conformity rather than on creativity and choice. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

7.347
The very limited opportunities for forming personal one to one adult/child relationships. A reliance on corporal punishment as a feature in the maintenance of discipline and good order. A failure to properly understand the level of trauma suffered by each child as a result of being separated from family, sometimes in circumstances where their placement in the institution followed the death of a parent. A failure to properly respond to the individual emotional needs of the children, including how lonely and frightened they must have been in being taken from family and placed in a large institution with children of all ages. A failure to recognise the special emotional and educational needs of children who had come from troubled backgrounds. A failure to keep children informed about their family and family events, such as births marriages and deaths. A failure to assess the individual needs of each child, either on admission or on an ongoing basis. A failure to meet the comprehensive educational needs of children and the very inadequacy of the educational process itself relative to their needs.
In its written Submissions, the Congregation seemed to distance itself somewhat from culpability for the emotional deprivation experienced by so many complainants, and stated: Allegations of emotional abuse are difficult to evaluate. Whether there was a general tendency to verbally denigrate and discourage the children is something almost as intangible to assess as the atmosphere in the school ... the complainants undoubtedly had very real feelings of emotional neglect. One can see how a large institution failed to supply the emotional needs of the child, even if the carers did not go further and actually insult and denigrate them. The absence of personal love and encouragement would undoubtedly have left the children with a lack of self-regard and feelings of worthlessness ... The failure to provide for the emotional well-being of the children in the institution is a major failing on the part of the industrial school. It is perhaps the one that most impacted on the long-term psychological development of the child. A child could probably cope much better with obstacles and handicaps in the institution and, later, out of the institution, provided she felt loved and valued as an individual ... But where does the blame for emotional neglect lie? The form of childcare provided by St Vincents industrial school, Goldenbridge was not a personal whim or caprice of Sister Alida or Sister Venetia. It was a large institution embedded in an institutional structure of child-care approved of by the State authorities ... The role of the Sisters actually running the schools needs to be put in its proper context without denying the emotional reality of the children.
Conclusions
7.348 1. Goldenbridge could have operated a kinder regime, where children were safe and secure, in keeping with the aspirations of the Sisters of Mercy, but it failed to do so. 2. Witnesses described how the conditions in Goldenbridge left them with low selfesteem for the rest of their lives. 3. Children were routinely humiliated and belittled by the nuns and carers who looked after them. 4. Children with parents or relatives who kept in touch received more favourable treatment than those children who did not. 5. Girls left Goldenbridge ill-equipped to deal with the outside world. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 307
Underwear inspections
7.349 An extreme example of the culture of humiliation that permeated Goldenbridge can be seen in the practice of underwear inspections. Several allegations were made by complainants to the effect that, when their underwear was changed weekly, their underwear was inspected and they were beaten if there was any mark on it. Two complainants said the soiled underwear was paraded on a pole for everyone to see before they received their fresh laundry. No reference is made to these allegations in the Opening Statement of the Sisters of Mercy. In their Submissions, however, they say that the practice of having to show dirty underwear on a weekly basis is a puzzling one. They add that: ... it is difficult to see what rational basis there might be for such a practice, except perhaps to check whether older girls might have started their periods, or checking the number on the underwear, or something of that nature. If so, it might have been done on an occasional basis but it would hardly have been a regular event for every girl. 7.351 A witness spoke of the underwear inspection: We would change our pants once a week. I can see the basket on the corridor, it was a Saturday. Friday night, there would be somebody on the toilet door, but we would go into the toilet, one by one let in and we would wash out pants in the toilet. If we didnt get the chance, we thought we were going to be too long, we would actually spit on them and put them under our sheet and lie on them ... We knew there was an inspection on the Saturday and that we would have to have them clean. If they werent clean we would get beaten across the bare bum. 7.352 Another witness spoke of having to show her underwear on the day that fresh underwear was distributed to the children. When questioned as to the possible reasons for having to display underwear, she expressed the view that it served to embarrass and humiliate the children. She recalled one particular incident whereby a childs underwear was paraded for all to see: I do remember one incident in the workroom where there was a pair of panties put on the sweeping brush, the handle of the brush and swung around and everybody have a look at so and sos pants. 7.353 One other witness gave details of the underwear-changing ritual: We had to show our underwear every Thursday. It could be in the washroom thats where I remember it. You had to show your underpants but normally what we did is we devised methods in how to wash our underwear and we used the toilets in the cisterns to wash our clothes. Sometimes the night before we would put them under the beds to dry. 7.354 When asked what would happen if they displayed them soiled on inspection day, she said Oh you would be beaten, severely beaten. Another witness spoke of the terrifying ordeal of a nun or a lay teacher or both displaying the childrens underwear on clothes inspection day: There was in the very early days a practice, I dont know what the correct word, is of a nun or a teacher holding up and making a display of your clothes if they were soiled so we quickly learned that way of overcoming it. 7.356 Yet another witness spoke about the weekly practice of displaying underwear: We all went up in a single file to show our underwear and we had to have them turned inside out. 308 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.350
7.355
In the yard. There was a wicker basket when you come out of the yard to the right hand side and thats where you dropped your underwear. Sr Alida had a pole, it was similar to what you would light candles with in a church, anything that she didnt like, your underwear was hoisted on this pole. Often she would say hands up who thinks this is dirty. This caused considerable distress and humiliation and we could never ever trust each other because if you were anyway close to somebody you wouldnt put up your hand. If you didnt put up your hand she would come after you, whoever that was. 7.357 Another witness spoke of the same ritual: We got one change on a Thursday. We had to produce our underpants to see what condition they were in and if they were soiled we were beaten. It was on a Thursday after school that was the way we were treated. 7.358 Another witness told about washing her underwear in the toilet cistern in order to avoid the humiliation of displaying soiled underwear on the clothes inspection day: That was because if you woke up in the morning and you had dirty underwear there was nowhere you could get it you didnt get clean underwear every day. You got that once a week. What it was if any of them checked to see if it was dirty then they would give you hell ... You would get beaten, smacked and the language would be horrific: You dirty bitch. You filthy bitch. You would be called wet the bed as well. They used that very regular ... You would wash the underwear and you would leave it ... we had rubber sheets and you would leave it under there but if you did that then the mattress would get marked so what you would do is leave it under the sheet and then the sheet would get sometimes it might get stained and sometimes it might not. If it got stained you were accused of wetting the bed. So you got two goes at it. 7.359 Another witness recalled that the clothes inspection took place in the yard. She felt that the inspection of dirty underwear was like a form of punishment; not every single girls underwear was checked: Probably not every single person might have to. I remember I did, I remember when the girls did, but I wouldnt say she went around every single person; I couldnt honest to God say that. 7.360 One further witness, who had a very good recollection of life in Goldenbridge, also spoke about showing the underwear once a week when the fresh underwear was being distributed: For soiled clothing, every single week because we had to show our underwear once a week to two or three people who had large wicker baskets in front of them. We all stood in line all with our underwear, as we showed them we got hit with a stick. 7.361 The offensive practice of inspecting underwear was confirmed by many witnesses, including one put forward by the Congregation as a favourable witness. The practice caused extreme embarrassment and humiliation and it was futile and utterly degrading.
The four cornerstones

7.362 The Dear Daughter programme contained a number of very serious allegations against Goldenbridge and the Sisters of Mercy. The Sisters of Mercy have identified what they describe as four key areas in the Dear Daughter programme. They say that these are mistruths that appeared in the programme and subsequently appeared in evidence by complainants who came into the Investigation Committee to speak about CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 309
7.363
their experiences in Goldenbridge. The Sisters have said that the recurrence of a number of these key issues in the statements that were made to the Investigation Committee casts doubt on the validity of the memories of the women and men who testified. The Sisters of Mercy in their Submission identified four key allegations:

7.364
Scraps that children were starved and had to fight each other for scraps thrown out to them in the playground each day. Water that children had to drink from the toilets because there was no drinking water available to them day or night. Numbers that children were always referred to by number rather than by name. Potties that babies were mistreated/tied to potties for long periods and frequently suffered from prolapsed rectums as a result.
The Sisters submitted that a number of complainants got these particular allegations wrong, and that they got them wrong in precisely the same way. They maintain that it is the commonality of the memory errors that gives the clue to their importance. Scraps
7.365
In Dear Daughter, there is a visual image of a colander of scraps being thrown out of a window into a yard and children fighting for the scraps. Eight of the complainants in their witness statements allege that scraps of food were thrown out of a window into the yard, and that the children would scramble and fight each other for these scraps. Eleven complainants made this allegation in oral evidence. They each, in various ways, referred to the poor quality of the food, the fact that they were hungry, and that bread was thrown out of a window at 3 oclock each day, and the children all scrambled and pushed each other to grab a slice of bread. The Sisters of Mercy have agreed with one description of this aspect of life in Goldenbridge. In her evidence to the Committee, a witness said that at 3.30pm, the children would line up in an orderly queue, a window would be opened in the yard, and bread would be distributed from a colander. She said that, if there was any left after all the children had got a slice, it would be just thrown out into the yard: ... they gave you your bread, there was a tray or sometimes there was a big ... colander type of thing and the bread would be in there and theyd give it out to you ... you had to line up. If there was any left and if there was a load of us still there and I would probably be one of them, she would just sometimes throw it out and you would get it. But for your first slice of bread you lined up and you got it ... Instead of queuing up again and everybody would be pushing, she would just throw it and you would grab it.
7.366
7.367
She said the bread would first be handed out, and only at the end of this distribution were the scraps thrown into the yard: No, I can assure you, we lined up first and sometimes there was two people there, actually most of the time there was two people there and they would hand you your bread and you would go and then you would hang around.
7.368
A broadly similar account was also given by another former resident, who said that she could recall a lay worker handing out lumps of bread from a window overlooking the yard and the children queuing for the bread. She said that, after the big lumps of bread were handed out, and then when it gets smaller, she just throws it out to whoever didnt get any. This account is accepted by the Sisters of Mercy, but other witnesses who spoke about this distribution of bread gave a different version. 310 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.369
7.370
One witness recalled scrambling for scraps that were thrown out of a window in Goldenbridge. Another former resident said that she recalled being hungry all the time and that, during her earlier years in Goldenbridge in the early 1960s, she recalled scraps from the kitchen being thrown out of a window to the children who were playing in the yard: I just remember the window being open in the yard and the scraps coming out and we all digging in to get a bit of bread and cake that was left over. One witness described the distribution of bread in the following terms: From my memory there was a window in the hall and somebody used to say word would get around when youd get scraps cos you would get them maybe once a month. Somebody said we are getting scraps today. It could be from what the lay people had, the crusts could be left over and it would be all thrown into a steel bin, a stainless steel bowl. The window would open and I am seeing it even as myself, I done it as a child, I done it as a teenager, and that window would open and the bowl of scraps would actually just be thrown out, out the window onto the yard and everybody would scream and charge. You would actually walk on the babies, I am sure I done it myself, it was done on me, and that just went on.
7.371
7.372
Another witness said: But there was a practice of when the teachers had their meals that there would be leftovers and those leftovers would be brought to the yard window and just scattered out the window and we would dive on them. If you managed to get something your day was made.
7.373
Another witness, when asked whether it was possible that the scraps were thrown only at the end of the distribution of bread, stated: Definitely not ... otherwise I wouldnt feel so horrified and shamed to have to tell you this. First of all, who was going to create this order of this orderly row of children that were hungry to stand in line to wait for bread, who was supervising this? That didnt happen. It was a free for all and the strong ones and the ones that were a bit heavy were the ones that were first to the front of the queue. Obviously the weaklings, I wasnt that weak, but I wasnt very forceful either, they wouldnt fare so well. What was thrown you would just have to clamber for it. People would walk on it with their sandals and you would pick it up and eat it.
7.374
A slightly different version of this story was given by another witness, who said: The window opened up and whether it be one of the teachers or the helpers they had this huge big I have it here, they had this huge big sieve and you would have all the different crumbs and all sorts, you might even get a piece of cake in it. They would open up the window and this would be flung out, you would know it was coming. You would stand waiting on it and there would be a dive for the thing, all these little crumbs. If you got a bit of cake, you you would even beat up the one that had a bigger piece than you, a slice of bread instead of a bit bread. They would just fling it out the window ...
7.375
The Sisters of Mercy assert that this allegation is a serious distortion of the practice of bringing out a tray of bread and margarine (or jam) to the children in the yard after school. Scraps were thrown out of a receptacle into the yard, and children scrambled for them. Whatever the circumstances, this should not have happened and was demeaning for the children. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 311
7.376
Drinking water from toilets 7.377 It was alleged that the children in Goldenbridge did not have access to water during the day, and had to resort to drinking water from either the toilet bowl or the cistern. One witness described it as follows: We used to all drink out of the toilets. There was toilets at the end of the yard, we used to go down there. There was no taps, you just flushed the chain and drink the water. 7.379 When asked whether he recalled a drinking fountain in the yard, he said: No. There used to be a little push handle thing down, that hardly ever worked. I remember it did work, it didnt always work. I am sure it was there ... We used to ... drink out of the toilets anyway. You followed what the other kids done. 7.380 Another witness said: In between meals there was no facility for a glass of water, there was nothing, nowhere you could, we didnt have money to buy anything. There was no machines, no vending in those days. Nothing like that. You would go to the toilets where they had the loose top and you would scoop water up, you would scoop it up in your hand or you would get something like I dont know how to describe it. It was like a funnel from the big dryers, there was a little connection, you would get it and you would drink the water from the cistern. I mean, you wouldnt think whether this is healthy or unhealthy. 7.381 One witness said: We used to drink water out of the toilets, out of the either the bowl or the cistern depending on how tall you were ... I mean, I see in a statement from Sr Alida she said that a tap was in the yard, I dont know where it was because I was never allowed have a drink out of it. 7.382 When asked if she remembered a tap or drinking fountain in the yard, she said: I was there for twelve years and I dont remember seeing a tap in the yard. I do remember drinking water out of the toilets, out of the cistern, out of the bowl. 7.383 Another witness said: Because they wouldnt give you water. You asked for water and you werent given it. So obviously to try and survive, you would come out, you would be in the yard and you would go into the toilets in the yard and flush the toilets and drink water from the toilets. That wasnt just a once-off, that was on a good number of occasions. 7.384 Another witness, when asked about the existence of a drinking fountain in the yard, said that if there had been a fountain in the yard it must have been broken because we used to drink out literally of the toilet or lift up the cistern, the top of the toilet. Sr Alida stated there was a drinking fountain in the yard which came from Liverpool and was marked hooligan proof. It remained in working order until the time she left Goldenbridge. She also stated that children could get water from the kitchen and a small bathroom under the stairs. One explanation for the lack of access to water is in relation to the problem of bed-wetting which, according to Sr Alida, was a huge problem that existed in Goldenbridge. Sr Alida said they had sought medical advice, and one of the recommendations was the deprivation of all fluids before bedtime. 312 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.378
7.385
7.386
7.387
However, Sr Venetia stated to Mr Crowley that children used to drink from the toilet cistern. In his report he stated: Sr Venetia confirmed the allegations in relation to the tumble dryer and drinking from the toilet cistern.
7.388
The Sisters of Mercy denied that children were deprived of water as there was a drinking fountain in the yard. They conceded, however, that on foot of medical advice they deprived children who were prone to wetting the bed of water from a certain time in the afternoon. These children may have resorted to covertly drinking from the toilet. They asserted that this is another example of how a practice became distorted and exaggerated by witnesses.
7.389
Children drank out of the toilet, which was confirmed by Sr Venetia when speaking to Mr Crowley in 1996. This happened irrespective of whether the fountain in the yard was working. Some children were deprived of water in an effort to cure bed-wetting, and they found water where they could.
Children referred to by number 7.390 The calling of children by number is another specific allegation made by complainants. They assert that staff referred to them not by name but by number. This is an allegation which appeared in the Dear Daughter programme. It is also an allegation which was made by 11 complainants in their statements to the Commission and in oral evidence. One witness said: The numbers were used when they were giving out the clothes or anything like that that belonged to the children. Anything that you had marked you always had a number on it. You never had a name on it. 7.391 Another witness also stated that clothes were distributed according to the number of the child. However, under cross-examination, this witness went further and stated that the children were referred to by number. Another witness recalled the day that she entered Goldenbrige and was stripped of her own clothes, washed and given a set of clothes that were hard, rough, horrible and was given a number and told never to forget it. Another witness recalled that, when she entered Goldenbridge, her name was taken away and she was given a number. She said: In Goldenbridge I was a number. This witness was adamant that she was never called by her name, and that it was always by her number. Even when she was cross-examined about the use of the number for the purpose of clothing, she stated that she was called by her number irrespective of whether clothes were being distributed or not. Again, another witness when questioned about how he was addressed in Goldenbridge said: You were called by your surname or your number. It was mainly your surname. You were never called by your name ... 7.396 7.397 He also confirmed that the numbers were used for the system of laundering clothes. One other witness disagreed with the contention that the numbers were only used for laundry purposes: CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 313
7.392
7.393
7.394
7.395
Some people they knew very well, the ones that were always in trouble, always getting slapped, some of them would be well known. You would be called by your number ... 7.398 Another witness recounted that she did not recall staff referring to her by her Christian name, but did recall being called by her number. The Sisters of Mercy assert that this was never the case; children were never called by a number. The use of numbers was for the purpose of laundry and distributing childrens clothing. Each item of the childs clothing was numbered so that, when it was washed and ironed, that same item of clothing could be returned to the appropriate child. Sr Gianna, who worked in the laundry and workroom of Goldenbridge for three years, gave a detailed account of the washing and distribution of the childrens clothing. In evidence, Sr Gianna recounted that the childrens clothing, once it had been washed and ironed, was brought down to the recreation hall for distribution: And the numbers called out then. We had them in the big baskets and then you picked out your three articles or four articles and you called out a number and the child who owned these came forward. She went down and she undressed and you had the senior girls there helping the smaller ones to dress and undress. They would bring up their soiled laundry and put it into the baskets. 7.400 Another witness stated that she disagreed with certain aspects of the Dear Daughter programme. In particular, she disagreed with the suggestion in the programme that children were called by number. She said as follows: Yeah, it wouldnt be always numbers I have to say, because I wasnt always called by numbers. Maybe some other people may have felt it that way, but when I heard that I thought, no, that wasnt me. 7.401 From the evidence of the complainants, what is clear, apart from the issue of the numbers, is that children were not called by their Christian name. In the main, they appear to have been referred to by their numbers, their surnames, or by nicknames. The use of numbers instead of names was not widespread in Goldenbridge. Numbers were used, however, on occasions such as dealing with laundry. Babies left sitting on potties for prolonged periods 7.403 This specific allegation, that babies were strapped to potties for long periods of time and suffered a prolapsed rectum, first emerged in the Gay Byrne radio show in 1992. It was repeated on the Dear Daughter programme. A number of complainants made this allegation in their statements of complaint to the Commission. However, in oral evidence it did not feature very largely as an allegation. One witness described it in the following terms: They (babies) were placed on potties, yes. They were strapped down and there were marks on their little bums when they got up. There was one particular child whose back passage used to come down. He was a little boy by the name of .... 7.405 This complainant further stated when questioned that she herself was aged around eight or nine years when she saw this little boy with what she believed to be a prolapsed rectum. Another witness made reference to the strapping of babies to potties: We used to look after the babies there. There was maybe 50, 60 babies. You used to look after them, you used to have to bath them and change them. You used to stick them on the potties, strapped to potties for hours on end. 314 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.399
7.402
7.404
7.406
7.407
Other witnesses whose job was to mind the babies made no reference to the practice of strapping babies onto potties. One positive witness stated that the babies were so well looked after. Several witnesses asserted that they only saw one instance of a prolapsed rectum. One witness described the shock of seeing a child with a prolapsed rectum: In the rec there was toilets down near the stage end and the babies used to be put the little ones used to be put on the potties. I remember I was sitting more or less facing there was benches all around the rec, I was facing these children on the potty. I remember one of them stood up and something was hanging down and it really frightened me. I didnt understand. To this day it is still imprinted on me.
7.408
7.409
In her general written statement to the Commission, Sr Alida devoted a section to the care of babies in Goldenbridge. She stated: Babies were never left sitting on a potty a long time. There was one baby who suffered from a prolapsed rectum, however this girl had this problem on admission. There was no question of young children looking after our babies and no-one was ever taught to reinsert a babys rectum as some complainants describe.
7.410
Sr Alida said that children were placed on potties when they got up in the morning, after every meal and before they went to bed. She said they would be left for about 12 minutes on each occasion. This represents a total of six occasions per day that children would have been placed on potties, for a total period of 72 minutes at least. This would have been a considerable proportion of the day for toddlers or small children. Many witnesses have described a fairly rigid system regarding toilet training. With a large number of babies to toilet train and with the limited staff available, individual attention was not possible. After a certain age, children were not provided with nappies, and older residents would be required to sluice out soiled sheets and bedding as well as clean excrement off children who had soiled or wet in the night. That said, the general view was that Sr Alida was kind and loving towards the babies and, in her testimony to the Investigation Committee, she said: Babies you could compensate, the babies we loved and we hugged and we gave every kind of care to babies. They got the best. Any baby that came to our care, I can only say they got the best.
7.411
Sr Alida showed kindness to babies, but caring for large numbers of them with inadequate staff led to a regimented approach in which babies were left sitting on potties for long periods of time. General conclusion on the four cornerstones
7.412
Each of these allegations highlighted by the Dear Daughter programme had a basis in fact. While there were differences in perception as between the Congregation and the complainants, complainants who referred to these elements did not thereby become unreliable witnesses.
Neglect
General living conditions
7.413 The General Inspection and Medical Reports of the Department of Education and Science give some indication of the general living conditions of the children. Sr Alida, who had worked in the School for over 20 years, also provided some information on this issue. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 315
7.414
The first available documentary piece of information is an Inspection Report from the Departments Medical Inspector, Dr Anna McCabe, in August 1939. She reported four cases of scabies. In a report the following year, she noted two instances of scabies. In March 1941, Dr McCabe carried out a general inspection and found that the School was well kept and satisfactory in all areas. There is no General Inspection Report for 1942. When Sr Alida and Sr Bianca arrived in August 1942, they found the children in an appalling condition. The majority of the children were suffering from scabies and ringworm of the scalp. Sr Alida said: They had skin trouble which I never saw before, it was scabies. Id say 75 percent of the children would have scabies at that time ... they had ringworm of the scalp a number of them ... it would be big abscesses in their hair, that the hair couldnt be combed.
7.415
7.416
7.417
Sr Bianca set about dealing with the situation immediately. She closed the School for two weeks. During this two-week period, the children were bathed and their bodies were covered with an ointment for the treatment of scabies and they were sent to bed. Every three days, the procedure was repeated until the infection was gone. Their clothes were sent to the laundry, and Sr Bianca spent all of her time in the laundry disinfecting the clothes by steam boiling, with the help of those girls who were not infected. After three days, the ointment had soaked into the childrens bodies and killed the infection. Sr Bianca contacted Dublin Corporation, who organised for the childrens bedclothes to be removed and disinfected. Ringworm was more difficult to treat because there were abscesses on the childrens heads. Sr Alida said: They went to Steevens Hospital with those. In the hospital, first of all, they were drawing pus and the hair was stuck onto their heads, it was very nasty to describe. I think in Steevens Hospital they recommended cutting the hair and you had to take it off bit by bit to get the hair away ... Lotion was then applied to the scalp which killed the hairs and plaster was put on the head in strips, which was then pulled off and when they pulled off the plaster they pulled the roots of the hair out as well.
7.418
7.419
The General Inspection Reports made no reference to these conditions at all. The following year, Dr McCabe recorded that the School was well kept and that most areas were satisfactory, but she criticised the condition of the children, saying they could be cleaner and neater. The next inspection took place on 27th January 1944 and she commented that the premises were very well kept, clean and tidy and most areas were found to be satisfactory, but she found that the children looked far from being neat and tidy. She said that their clothes were tattered and untidy and their blankets were thin and worn. The cause of the thinness of the blankets, according to Sr Alida, arose from the process of disinfecting them during the scabies outbreak in 1942. Dr McCabe recommended replacing the blankets and supplying each child with a toothbrush and for the dentist to visit every quarter. She also sought greater supervision of the younger children. In her evidence, Sr Alida said that it took years to replace the blankets and eventually they got seconds from Foxford Manufacturers. In June 1944, there was another outbreak of ringworm in the School. Sr Bianca informed the Department that several children had contracted ringworm, and she sought an increase in the maintenance allowance to cover the cost of treatment. Dr McCabes advice was sought by the Department in relation to the treatment for ringworm, and her response was that the School was expected to cover the cost of medical treatment for children from the grant received. 316 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.420
7.421
7.422
Dr McCabe carried out a General Inspection on 28th June 1944 and she found that the standard of cleanliness and supervision of the children had improved, but she was not completely satisfied with the conditions. All the children had not been supplied with toothbrushes, the dentist had not paid a quarterly visit, and the blankets had not been replaced. The Department made these observations known to the Resident Manager. In the Medical Inspection conducted during the same visit, Dr McCabe noted four children required treatment for ringworm. Dr McCabes General Inspection Reports from 1948 until her retirement in 1963 were, without exception, very positive. Her reports during these years were not very detailed and were, in fact, quite repetitive in content. She frequently stated that the School was well run and in some years remarked that it was extremely well run22 or very well conducted.23 She also commented in her reports that many improvements had been made and continued to be made to the School.24 The exact nature of these improvements was not detailed in these reports. Throughout this time period, Dr McCabe singled out the Resident Manager for praise. In her General Inspection Report of January 1959 and 1960, she said Sr Alida an excellent nun ... knows many things about running a good school. Dr McCabes General Inspection Reports of 1963 referred to the fact that Sr Venetia is now Res. Manager and is doing very well being a disciple of Sr Alida she is excellent. The Medical Reports during this period were glowing, with reference often made to the fact that small children and babies are particularly well cared for. But in her Medical Inspection Report of May 1955, Dr McCabe noted that 11 children were receiving treatment for scabies. The General Inspection Reports after Dr McCabes retirement continued to be very favourable about the living conditions in the School. Dr Charles Lysaght, who carried out a General Inspection of the School on 21st March 1966, commented that it was well run: the premises were clean and in good repair and the accommodation consisted mostly of modern buildings with excellent dormitory accommodation. Sr Venetia came in for particular praise from Dr Lysaght when he referred to her as being most competent and appears dedicated to the work. In the 1970s, Graham Granville took over as the Departments General Inspector. His reports were also very favourable of the living conditions and the premises and accommodation. However, there were only three reports for the entire period of the 1970s, namely 1971, 1976 and 1978 because of staff shortages in the Department of Education. Mr Granville was concerned about the lack of qualifications of the staff and the change in the type of child that was being admitted. A lot of the children were categorised as disturbed. Proposals for the group home system were advocated, and sanction was given, but these plans were not carried through until the 1980s. Conclusions
7.423
7.424
7.425
7.426
7.427
7.428
7.429

22 23 24
The severity of the problem tackled by Sr Bianca and Sr Alida disclosed evidence of severe neglect. The work undertaken by these two nuns was heavy and relentless and brought about immediate improvements to the School. The absence of reference to these problems in the Departmental Medical Reports discloses a weakness of the inspections.
General Inspection Reports 1953, 1954. General Inspection Reports 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1962, 1963. General Inspection Reports 1955, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960.
317
Education
7.430 The children in Goldenbridge were educated in their own internal national school. There was another national school within the same grounds run by the Sisters of Mercy for the children of the locality. The Cussen Report recommended that, where possible, children should be educated in external national schools. It identified a drop in standards in literary education in internal national schools, and attributed this to the fact that the teachers employed were not well qualified. Cussen also recommended that salaries of teachers in internal national schools attached to industrial schools should be paid by the Department of Education, in the same way as in ordinary national schools. A Department of Education inspection conducted in 1939, for the purposes of considering whether teachers salaries in the internal national school should be paid by the State, queried why the children in Goldenbridge did not attend the local national school. The reasons proffered by the Resident Manager was that the local schools were already overcrowded. She was also opposed to the children being transported to other schools, on the basis that she could not be held responsible for them once they left the Industrial School. The Department accepted this explanation and proceeded to certify the internal national school and to pay the teachers salaries from 1941. The Department of Education school inspection report for March 1935 had noted a very satisfactory educational standard in Goldenbridge, with each school subject rated either very good or good on the whole. The report concluded that the School was good on the whole and: Order, discipline and politeness leave nothing to be desired. The tastefully decorated schoolrooms are an education in themselves. Taken class-by-class, progress in subjects is at least satisfactory and in quite a few subjects very satisfactory. It must be added that the average age of the pupils according to classification is high. This is due to (the fact that) many of the pupils when enrolled are very backward. Promotions from year to year are quite regular. 7.433 The report noted that the internal national school had 140 pupils taught by five full-time and two part-time teachers. Two of the teachers were nuns and three were lay staff. None of the teachers was formally qualified, although they all had many years of experience. Staffing levels were described as quite adequate. Within seven years, standards in the school had plummeted. Sr Alida painted a grim picture of conditions in the internal national school. She recalled that, upon her arrival in 1942, there were only two untrained lay teachers responsible for educating 150 children of different ages and abilities. These two teachers were ill-equipped to deal with this workload. The school curriculum was the same as that taught in every national school in the country. The children did not, however, receive homework in the evenings. From the late 1950s, children who showed academic ability were given the opportunity of pursuing post primary education because of a scholarship fund set up by the Archbishop of Dublin. In 1977, Goldenbridge was recognised as a special school by the Department of Education. Evidence of the Sisters of Mercy 7.437 The Sisters of Mercy confirmed in their Opening Statement that homework was not a feature of the internal national school. In addition to the normal national school curriculum, children aged 13 and over participated in a domestic economy training module overseen by the Department of Education. This training took place in the afternoons. The children were also taught physical education, dancing and social skills by teachers employed especially for these purposes. 318 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.431
7.432
7.434
7.435
7.436
7.438
The Sisters of Mercy conceded that: With hindsight it seems likely that many of the children attending the school had particular educational difficulties given their disadvantaged backgrounds and, in some cases, disrupted schooling. Many were undoubtedly in need of what would now be termed remedial education. Until late in the 1960s the fact that some of the children had special educational needs was not recognised. In due course in 1977 the school itself was given special school status. In the 1940s and 1950s however, there were no special facilities, teachers or resources to take account of those special needs and it is undoubtedly the case that the method of education provided was inadequate for the needs of many of the children.
7.439
It is surprising that no programme existed within Goldenbridge itself to identify these childrens needs and to help them. While it is accepted that, at a national level, programmes like these did not exist, the Sisters of Mercy were engaged in providing a specialist service for a very long period of time, and they were the people best placed to identify the needs of the children in the Industrial School and to provide for them. Whilst the Sisters of Mercy may rightly criticise the Department of Education for failing to identify the particular needs of the children in the Institution, they themselves must take some responsibility for failing to take any initiatives in this regard over the very many decades that they were engaged in this work. On the issue of corporal punishment, the Sisters of Mercy suggested that it was no more than would have been in existence in any other national school around the country. Corporal punishment was part of the routine in the Goldenbridge internal school. Allegations of corporal punishment made against both Sisters and lay teachers appear to be correct in many instances. One of the lay teachers who gave evidence to the Committee has admitted, with some regret, that she did use corporal punishment whilst she was a teacher in Goldenbridge. The Congregation stated: The use of corporal punishment in the classroom setting was inevitably non-productive, and has caused indelible memories of being slapped or beaten for no reason. Poor educational achievement and inability to find employment other than in domestic or low grade service was the consequence for many children.
7.440
7.441
7.442
7.443
7.444
The Congregation added that there was little doubt that practices such as correcting lefthandedness and wearing dunces hats may also have been used. It posed the following question: the question must be asked as to whether this type and level of education was so significantly different to that available to the average Irish child of the time, as to constitute abuse?
7.445
The Sisters of Mercy do not accept that children were taken out of school to perform chores. They conceded that it may have happened occasionally, with girls over 13 years of age, but it was not an established or widespread practice. The Congregation vehemently denied that the Sisters conspired to help the children pass the Primary Certificate. Evidence of respondents
7.446
Sr Alida testified that, when she arrived in Goldenbridge, there was a very poor standard of education in the School. There were only two untrained lay teachers, Ms Kearney and Ms Dempsey, whose duties were not limited to the classroom. Apart from being responsible for the CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 319
education of the entire school, they also acted as carers to the children and were provided with board and lodgings in the School. Sr Alida stated that she did not know how they managed. 7.447 Both Sr Alida and Sr Bianca took up teaching positions in the school alongside Ms Kearney and Ms Dempsey, who at this point moved to lodgings outside the School. Sr Bianca had 10 years teaching experience behind her, and Sr Alida had none. Sr Alida had hoped to give up teaching and dedicate herself full-time to the care of the 150 children aged between four and 16. However, as she was a qualified teacher and there was a clear shortage of teachers in Goldenbridge, her teaching skills were too valuable to put to one side. Her principal role in the Institution was as a teacher and, even when she took over as Sister in Charge in 1954, she continued to teach fulltime until she left. When asked whether she received any training or instruction in relation to how to deal with such large numbers of children, Sr Alida said she had received none whatsoever. I think you had to use your own head. Only two of the classrooms appeared to be in use, the other two had clearly fallen into disuse, and one even lacked the most basic classroom equipment such as desks and benches. There was no roll book in use. Sr Bianca set about acquiring equipment for the classrooms in Goldenbridge. She also ordered playground equipment from England, and Sr Alida recalled swings, a merry-go-round and a drinking fountain being installed in the playground. Sr Alida was adamant that she did the best she could to give the children a proper education: I did as good as I could to give the opportunities to children and given the best I could give for them in clothes, food and everything else and education. In between there must be many children who said to me today, "I didn't get a chance." There is one who does say it, "I didn't get an education. ... Many of them got into assistant nursing and into childrens nursing. Our standard of education couldnt be that bad. I am not saying it was first class or high, because the children coming in to us had experience of school before they came. Many came from non-school attendance. Our level - we never had trouble with inspectors about the level of education in our schools. 7.450 Ms Kearney, who worked as a lay teacher, confirmed that, after finishing her own schooling, she completed a course in domestic economy before commencing her first teaching position in the mid-1930s in Goldenbridge. She shared a classroom with a senior teacher, Ms Dempsey. Neither was formally qualified to teach at that time. Ms Kearney stated that she was very glad to get the job in Goldenbridge: I was always afraid of doing or saying anything wrong, that I would be sacked, that was my one fear. 7.451 Both teachers used a leather to discipline the children, although Ms Kearney discontinued its use once she discovered how painful it was by mistakenly hitting herself with it. Ms Dempsey taught first and second class, and Ms Kearney taught third and fourth class. She was on duty until 10pm every other day, working in a supervisory capacity, once class was over. The older children helped with the care of the younger children. In 1946, Ms Kearney applied for and was granted provisional recognition as a primary school teacher. This qualified her to teach only in an industrial school. She continued to teach in Goldenbridge until she left. When asked if there were things that she would have spoken about if she didnt have the fear of being sacked, she said: 320 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.448
7.449
7.452
7.453
7.454
Sure ... well for one I would have loved to have seen the children with more space. I would have liked to have seen them with warmer clothes on them, because at the time that I went in there first they were very basic. More freedom. ... There were lots of children I would have loved to have hugged and cuddled. They were so lovely, but the bold girls would take it out on them, call them names, teachers pet, you know and shout at them and that. 7.455 Once she became a permanent teacher, Ms Kearney stated that she was no longer fearful of losing her job. At that stage, she no longer lived in the School and was unaware of day-to-day living conditions. She said that she, therefore, had no reason to complain. Ms Kearney stated that she had been of a sunny disposition before starting in Goldenbridge, but that this changed as the years went by. Ms Kearney found her job more difficult after the arrival of Sr Bianca and Sr Alida. She noticed a deterioration in the attitude of the children, who became sullen and defiant. In her view, Goldenbridge was not a happy place, but she did the best she could in the circumstances. Evidence of complainants 7.457 A number of complainants spoke about their memory of the education that they received in Goldenbridge and the impact this had on their later life. The main issues which arose during the course of the complainants evidence were:
7.456

7.458
The low standard of education. Excessive use of corporal punishment, which lead to an atmosphere of fear in the classroom, which in turn led to an inability to learn effectively. The arbitrary manner in which a few students were chosen to attend the external national school, which opened up the opportunity of progressing to secondary school. Children being taken out of school to perform domestic chores. Low self-esteem and lack of confidence as a result of the low standard of education and often leaving school without any qualifications.
Some of the complainants had quite positive memories of their school days in Goldenbridge, and believed that they did come away with a basic primary education for which they were grateful. One complainant, who was in Goldenbridge in the early 1950s, made an interesting comparison between the education she received in Goldenbridge and that which she received at an English school, which she attended immediately after leaving Goldenbridge. She said that in Goldenbridge, although she loved learning, she had not learnt anything in the School. When she was removed by her father from the Institution, aged 11, and brought to England, she attended school and got on very well there, despite her abusive family circumstances. Her description of that period was as follows: It was like a blossoming period. When I went to the school in England I craved education. That was my way of trying to conquer what life had done to me. I went to this little school and when we used to be asked to read and write,reading, I used to think to myself please dont come to us because I used to stammer and stutter and I had a thick accent apparently. I am there on this particular one day there was reading going on and I was stammering to myself, please dont ask me, please dont ask me, the teacher did ask me to read and I got up and the urine was running down my legs again, I always smelt of urine, I stunk of it. I was sitting there and I was waiting for the teacher to clatter me or batter me, but I never saw it. I was only there for a few weeks and I had come on in leaps and bounds ... When I went there I crammed once I knew that I wasnt going to get beaten, it was wonderful. Anything I could get to read, I loved it, it was a wonderful period CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 321
7.459
of time ... I managed to scrape through that 11+ ... I have always loved reading and writing and spelling and that and general knowledge and all that. It was a wonderful period. 7.460 The Congregation argued that it was a tribute, to some extent, to the teaching she received in the Institution that she was able to pass the 11+ exam within nine months of leaving. The complainant disagreed, and credited her examination success entirely to the schooling she received in England. The contrast that she made between the atmosphere in the classroom in England and in Goldenbridge is significant. Almost all of the complainants who spoke of school in Goldenbridge spoke of a fear of corporal punishment. Another complainant, who was committed to Goldenbridge at the age of seven in the early 1950s and remained there for nine years, recalled regular punishment by the teachers. She stated that she was constantly taken out of school to look after her sister, who was unwell, or to look after babies. As a result, she stated that she was not a good scholar. In the late 1950s, she sat the Primary Certificate and failed. She was registered to repeat the examination, but the record indicates that she was marked absent. One complainant who attended Goldenbridge in the 1950s stated that she left Goldenbridge without being able to write at the age of 14. She recalled: In Sr Alidas class I know I was very stupid. I didnt seem to be able to learn. All I know is that I was getting smacked, for being stupid I was getting smacked ... She would put me down in the corner ... but then I was so happy to be in the corner, because when you are in the corner you dont have to learn. 7.463 This complainant asserted that she learnt nothing in the classroom because she was in a constant state of fear of being punished, and she recalled regularly feeling nauseous. She described how she learned to tell the time from a toy watch belonging to one of the other children while she was cleaning the dormitories in the morning: I learned the clock under the bed, I learned a watch, how to tell the time. It was wonderful to learn the time because I was so stupid. 7.464 7.465 She did in fact sit her Primary Certificate while she was there, but she failed it. A witness who was committed to Goldenbridge in the 1950s at the age of three and remained until her 16th birthday recalled receiving very little education during her time in Goldenbridge. From the age of nine, she was regularly called out of class in order to carry out domestic chores. After roll call, she said catechism class was held. Once this class was over, a nun would come in and call out seven or eight names. These children then left class to do chores. Whilst she stated that she was not called out every day, it occurred regularly enough to prevent her from obtaining a proper education. Another complainant, who spent 12 years in Goldenbridge from the mid-1950s, recalled being slapped regularly and severely in the classroom by lay teachers. She said that Goldenbridge improved slightly in the 1960s, and a number of children were sent out to do secretarial courses towards the end of their time there. A witness, who was sent to Goldenbridge in the mid-1950s at the age of eight, stated that she received a very poor standard of education. She was regularly called out of class to carry out household chores. Her performance was also affected by a constant sense of fear she felt in class, a fear which remains with her today. She did not sit her Primary Certificate. 322 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.461
7.462
7.466
7.467
7.468
Another witness, who was committed to Goldenbridge in the early 1960s when she was nine years of age, said she could not read or write when she arrived in Goldenbridge, nor could she read or write when she left. This fact, which disabled her all her life, left her with a strong sense of frustration. In later life, she took advantage of the education fund put in place by the Sisters of Mercy and received lessons from a professional tutor. Whilst she arrived in Goldenbridge with absolutely no education, she did not receive any help or encouragement that might have given her the basics of reading and writing whilst she was there. She was regularly taken out of class to mind young children. She loved minding children and, had she had a choice of careers, she would have chosen to be a childrens nurse. However, her educational disadvantage ruled out such a career. A complainant, who was in Goldenbridge for nine years from the late 1950s, recalled being taught by Ms Dempsey, who had a habit of pulling the childrens cheeks and twisting their ears if they did not know their lessons. She recalled being made to wear a dunces hat on occasion. She said that: We had to stand on the chairs as well, hands on our heads, fingers on lips. Sometimes we had to kneel on those wooden chairs as well.
7.469
7.470
7.471
This regime continued into the next classes: Ms Kearney on the other hand, you had to keep your elbows in at all times when you were writing. The letters had to be like a proper whats the word sort of slant, rounded and turned ... She had a small stick and your elbows would really be beaten ... After I left Goldenbridge I dont think I wrote again really until I was in my 40s. Post primary education
7.472
From the late 1950s, a few children were sent to the local secondary top, sometimes having already been transferred to the local national school. Bishop Dunne set up a fund for providing post primary education for the children of Goldenbridge. These children were afforded study time in the evening and allowed to forgo some of the usual domestic chores, including bead making. One complainant stated that she attended secondary school because her father paid for her upkeep in Goldenbridge and requested that she do so. She said that only a few of the girls were given the opportunity of advancing their education: There was only a few of us that were allowed to go to secondary school. For example, the girl I mentioned earlier, she was very bright but a punishment for her was that she couldnt go to secondary. It was very selective.
7.473
7.474
She confirmed that those attending external school did receive some remission of the amount of time they spent bead making. Another witness started her education in the internal national school. Her father took an interest in her education and that of her sisters. It was at his insistence that they were transferred to the external national school and later to secondary school. She stated that she was considerably behind the rest of the class once she left the internal national school. Added to her difficulties was the fact that she suffered from mild dyslexia. She recalled her father giving her a flashlight to enable her to learn spellings whilst in bed at night. She completed her Intermediate Certificate, but did not proceed to sit the Leaving Certificate examination. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 323
7.475
7.476
7.477
A complainant who was in Goldenbridge in the 1960s recalled being taught by Ms Dempsey and Ms Kearney. She conceded that they were good teachers but thought that they were very cruel. She pitied the children who found their classes difficult because they were punished relentlessly. Ms Dempsey would beat children, pull them by the ear and place children in the dunces corner for hours as punishment. This complainant did proceed to secondary school, and expressed her gratitude at having been given the opportunity. However, the manner in which the children were chosen was somewhat arbitrary. She recalled that, one day, Sr Venetia came into the classroom, wrote a sum on the blackboard, and told the children to put their hands up when they had completed it. The complainant was the first to complete the sum and, on that basis, she was selected with two others to go to secondary school. She said that this occurred after Christmas and, therefore, she had missed the first term: We went to the secondary school the next day. I hadnt a breeze ... In no time I realised I knew nothing. I felt quite competent in the national school, in fairness I felt quite competent, but I hadnt a breeze, not a breeze ... I tried to survive as best I could, I tried to do whatever I could. But unfortunately, as I felt at the time, it was completely in vain because I failed my Inter Cert. Destroyed me. I had worked so hard and it was all for nothing.
7.478
7.479
Sr Alida spoke about the difficulty in choosing children to send to the external secondary school to progress their education: When secondary education became available in the local school I promoted one child once, four in the next set and then looking back on it now it was difficult because there are people complaining that they weren't chosen. It was very hard to know who you could pick, who was most entitled to, who would benefit most from it, and you had to try and give the advantage where possible. I did that to the best of my ability and people benefited from it in the ways that others did not.
7.480
The Sisters of Mercy pointed out that secondary schooling was available to only a minority of Irish children until the late 1960s, and that limited education and limited career opportunities were the order of the day for the average Irish child. The Congregation asserted that complaints from some witnesses that they were not given opportunities to fulfil their full potential illustrated the dangers of viewing the past through modern lenses. The Sisters of Mercy claimed that what was considered adequate at the time may, with hindsight, appear to a particular complainant not only as insufficient but abusive. The Sisters did not address whether they themselves could have made places available in their secondary schools for children who showed academic ability. This was not done prior to Bishop Dunnes initiative, when children were largely prepared for a life of domestic service only. After 1968, when free education was introduced nationally, more children did get the chance to avail of second level education. Conclusions
7.481

324
The standard of education in the internal primary school was not as high as in the external school. The use of excessive corporal punishment affected the ability of the children to learn. There is evidence that children between the ages of seven and 13 were taken out of school for domestic duties and some were taken out more frequently than others. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
There was a lack of educational opportunity in Goldenbridge. The Industrial School was intended to educate and train for future employment, but many of the children were only trained for domestic service. The Sisters of Mercy did not fraudulently assist children to pass their Primary Certificates. Efforts were made in the 1960s to send some girls on to secondary school or into secretarial colleges or nursing. These were the fortunate few, and it would appear that most left the School with no more than a Primary Certificate, and very many did not achieve this standard. Some children arrived in Goldenbridge having fallen behind in their education or having had no education. No real effort was made to address serious disadvantages for children when they arrived, and there was no encouragement given to them to progress.
Chores
7.482 Many complainants gave evidence of the onerous duties imposed on them in Goldenbridge, which they claimed were not appropriate to their age or their physical abilities. The use of domestic work as a form of punishment was also referred to by a number of complainants. On the other hand, the former residents who gave evidence to the Investigation Committee of their positive experiences in Goldenbridge did not feel that the chores they were required to carry out impacted upon them negatively. Evidence of the Sisters of Mercy 7.484 In their Opening Statement, the Sisters of Mercy described the daily routine: After breakfast every child old enough performed household chores suitable for their age for about half an hour before school, such as cleaning up the dining room, dusting corridors, helping with getting the babies or toddlers dressed and so on. 7.485 They said that, from 1.30pm, children from the age of 13 attended industrial training classes. Different age groups were assigned to do different chores including cookery, needlework, laundry or housekeeping in rotation. A different routine prevailed at weekends. Saturday was laundry day, and many children helped the Sisters with sorting and folding laundry. More time was devoted to household chores on Saturday, and the School got a thorough cleaning. In their written Submissions, the Sisters of Mercy accepted the following:
7.483
7.486

7.487
the children carried out chores in the morning for about half an hour after their breakfast and before school; the children strung rosary beads from Monday to Friday for several hours after school between 3.30 and 6.00pm and sometimes later into the evening, if there was pressure to complete a quota. They also worked at beads for several hours on Saturday; the children participated in a general clean up of the school on a Saturday, as well as helping with the laundry; the children participated in an industrial training programme from the age of thirteen. This programme took place in the afternoons after dinner.
The Sisters of Mercy submitted that, given the substantial amount of chores, it is not surprising that complainants had general memories of much work and little recreation. They added that it is possible that former residents may not have very precise memories of the age at which they performed certain chores; what jobs were done before school and on Saturdays, and what jobs CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 325
fell within the remit of the industrial training programme, in which all girls over the age of 13 participated. 7.488 The Congregation submitted that laundry was a large part of the routine in Goldenbridge, given the number of children. Children of all ages were expected to help. The older children would have been required to do the heavier work. It was suggested by the Congregation during hearings that younger children would have gone along to help the older girls and that it was in fact quite a social occasion. It does not accept that young children were taken out of school to work in the laundry. In support of this, the Congregation pointed out that laundry only took place on two days during the week, one of which was Saturday, when many of the children helped out. The existence of such a practice would have meant that the School relied, rather irrationally, on the labour of small children, when there was a ready supply of older, stronger girls available. The Congregation added that, given the fact that children may have done laundry as part of the domestic training programme as well as laundry on Saturdays, it may be the case that complainants were confused as to when precisely they did laundry. The Sisters of Mercy noted that none of the complainants appeared to remember laundry featuring as part of the industrial training programme at all. They contended that what complainants regarded as an onerous chore was in fact industrial training for their own benefit. The Sisters of Mercy conceded that the School was self-sufficient because of the input of the girls helping around the School, and they made reference to a woman employed to work in the laundry, and a member of staff who helped in the kitchen. They contended that the chores which the children performed were not out of keeping with the standards of the time and could not be labelled abusive. The Congregation was adamant that children as young as seven or eight were not taken out of school to perform chores, but that children over 13 years of age participated in an industrial training program in the afternoons. This programme adopted a three-pronged approach to industrial training: cookery, laundry, and housekeeping duties. This would have entailed a certain amount of domestic work around the Institution. The Congregation stated: At this remove in time, it is probably impossible to say that children over the age of twelve were not, on occasion taken in the afternoon to carry out domestic chores, be it laundry, minding younger children or helping in the kitchen. This may have been more likely with girls who showed little interest or ability at school. Evidence of respondents 7.491 Sr Alida said that there was a course in domestic economy training including cooking, sewing and laundry for girls over 13 years of age. They partook in this training in the afternoon, having spent the morning in school. On chores, Sr Alida accepted that: It would be correct to say, and I only recently appreciated it, that all the caring in the house, when I say caring, the chores, the housekeeping jobs, were all done by big girls and remember we would have about 80 girls over 12 in the house ... 7.493 Chores included washing and dressing the younger children, sweeping and scrubbing the floors, caring for the babies, and working in the kitchen and the laundry. Sr Alida accepted that the chores could be difficult: In my early day the charges were quite difficult in the sense that it was maintaining the floors mainly around the house and dormitory, but particularly in the corridors and the kitchen. They were old tiled floors, black and red tiles, and they were worn with the hundred years of wear. They were horrible to work on. That was one of the biggest chores 326 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.489
7.490
7.492
in the house because there were long corridors on the ground floor, the front door and the hall. The hall was new and modern but the rest was old. 7.494 She added that, under her management, these corridors were covered with a substance called tapiflex, which made a huge difference to cleaning. Sr Alida accepted that the chores were difficult, except that there were many hands to do it. Ms Garvin spent 13 years working as a teacher in Goldenbridge. She stated that, when she arrived in the School, there was an extensive domestic training programme in place for the older girls. The household chores performed by these girls formed part of the household management element of this programme. Chores included cleaning, laundry, cookery and sewing. Sr Giannas duties involved working in the workroom, mending and sorting clothes or working in the laundry on a Monday or Friday. She never saw children younger than 13 working in the laundry. She stated that the older girls were involved in keeping the School clean. Evidence of complainants 7.497 The evidence of the complainants was that they had a number of chores to perform daily, from a very young age, and that these were in addition to the many hours spent at bead making. A complainant who was in Goldenbridge during the 1950s and early 1960s told of the chores she performed every day. She stated that, after roll call, a number of names were called out and these children were sent to do chores. This happened on a regular basis: All I can remember is washing floors, scrubbing floors, scrubbing dormitories, doing laundry, making rosary beads. It was constant, hardly any education at all. The only thing you were really there for was catechism lessons in the morning. Apart from that you were taken out of school as soon as you got to the age where you could scrub floors, do whatever you had to do. 7.499 She described the work in the dormitories, each of which had about 30 or 40 beds: We had to lift those, they were heavy metal beds. We used to lift them to one side of the room, and sweep, wash and scrub the rooms ... It would take quite a few hours, because they were big dormitories ... If it wasnt done properly they would make you do the whole thing again ... there would be eight of us who used to do it together. 7.500 If the work was not completed satisfactorily, it would have to be redone, and she was sent to the landing to be punished by Sr Alida. She also described working in the laundry as very heavy work. They had big boilers in which to boil sheets. She described the procedure of washing these sheets: you had wooden tongs, which you would pull them from the boiler, into another cooler, which would rinse the sheets, and then put them through wringers and then hang them out. We used to have big baskets with all the sheets into them. 7.502 The most difficult part of the laundry work was lifting and pulling the sheets from one boiler to another. She had to stand on steps to reach the boiler and was always nervous of falling in. In addition to laundry and cleaning, she also recalled looking after babies. She recalled bathing them, putting them on potties and changing nappies. Although she described what, by any standards, was a heavy burden of chores, her main complaint was not so much about the chores she had to carry out but the manner in which they interfered with her education. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 327
7.495
7.496
7.498
7.501
7.503
7.504
One witness described how, when she was nine, she had been required to scrub the cobblestoned area in the bathroom as punishment for tearing her dress. She had to kneel down on the cobblestones to do this, which was painful. Although this was a chore that the children regularly carried out, she had to do it on her own by way of punishment. She also stated that she was taken out of Sr Venetias class to work in the laundry on Mondays and Fridays. She described the large vat-like boilers with very hot water, and using a stick to pull sheets from the boilers and push them through wringers before they were laid out to dry. The main laundry was done in the large industrial laundry attached to the School, but there was a certain amount of washing by hand that had to be done on a daily basis arising out of bed-wetting. One complainant who was in Goldenbridge during the 1960s said that she believed that the fact that her father was a regular visitor to the School saved her and her sister from the hardest physical work in the School. She lived in fear of something happening to her father, which would have left her at the mercy of the nuns: I remember thinking, if anything happens to you we are finished. We would be totally sucked in here because people that had nobody were the ones that did and the ones with low intelligence, God help them, they were the ones that were given the hardest work. We had big hoovers in those days, big heavy hoovers, washing hallway floors, the corridors. I was terrified that this is what would become of us. We would end up like cleaners for the rest of our lives. It devastated me.
7.505
7.506
7.507
One complainant, who was committed to Goldenbridge for four years at the age of five in the early 1960s, stated that he had clear memories of working regularly in the laundry as an alternative to bead making in the afternoons. He recalled an incident, while working in the laundry, in which a boy younger than him caught his arm in a mangle. The complainant was afraid and he ran away. Sometime later, he saw the boy with his injured arm in plaster-of-paris. This complainant stated that he first started working in the laundry approximately one year after he arrived, which would make him six years old. A witness, who was in Goldenbridge during the 1960s, spoke in detail of the chores that were required of the children: I remember sweeping that dormitory, that sounds like nothing, but first you had to pull every bed into the centre of the room, right, lift the bed ... Then lift the bed and shove it back in. I could do it with one hand I became so adept at it and they were heavy.
7.508
7.509
7.510
She spoke of other duties: the scrubbing and cleaning of the building. I mean we scrubbed and cleaned that entire building and that was a big building, well it seemed huge to us ... When I went there first they didnt have heavy, you know, the hoovers? ... They had a reddish floor polish. They had mansion polish, stuff like that. I dont know is that the same, but there is a very strong smelling kind of petroleum type smell off this oil. We used to put it on the floor and then on our knees polish it.
7.511
The flooring was made of lino and, in order to polish it, the children would skid across the room on the polishing rag. This made light of the chore and they enjoyed it. The Sisters later acquired large industrial hoovers which the children used to clean the floors. Evidence from a number of complainants was heard of girls being required to clean blocked sewers and toilets. The Sisters of Mercy stated that this work was done by a handyman employed by the School, and that no child would have to be involved in such work. However, complainants 328 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.512
have stated that newspaper rather than toilet paper was used, which resulted in toilets becoming blocked regularly, and one or two girls would be singled out for the unpleasant job of unblocking them. Conclusions 7.513
Older girls were taken out of class in order to look after younger ones, which was unfair and disruptive to their education. Requiring children from a young age to do chores was not in itself abusive, but chores became abusive because they were too onerous and were carried out under the threat of punishment. The burden of domestic chores and bead making for older girls occupied so many hours that it excluded opportunities for recreation and personal time.
Food
7.514 Many of the complainants stated that they were constantly hungry in Goldenbridge and that the food was inadequate both in terms of quantity and quality. Documentary evidence 7.515 The General Inspection Reports of the 1940s criticised the food and diet of the children; in particular, insufficient quantities of milk and butter were given during the war years. The Department of Education had allotted certain rations of milk and butter for children in industrial schools, and these quantities were not adhered to in Goldenbridge. Dr McCabe visited the School in 1943 and, in her report dated 21st July 1943, she found that the diet could be more varied and ample. Following a further inspection less than six months later, on 21st January 1944, Dr McCabe reported that the children were not receiving adequate supplies of milk and butter rations. Dripping was used as a substitute for butter. This matter was taken up by the Department of Educations Inspector for Industrial and Reformatory Schools, who wrote to the Resident Manager, Sr Bianca, by letter dated 29th February 1944, calling upon her to remedy the situation. No reply was received and the Inspector wrote again on 17th April 1944. By letter dated 26th April 1944, Sr Bianca responded that Dr McCabes suggestions had been put into effect as far as has been found practicable. She reassured the Inspector that every effort was being made to increase the rations of milk and butter for the children. An Inspector wrote back and indicated that, whilst he was pleased with the steps being taken by the Resident Manager to implement the Medical Inspectors recommendations, the milk and butter ration increases were, in his view, inadequate. In particular, he stated that each child was to receive one pint of milk per day and six ounces of butter each week. Sr Bianca responded on 4th May 1944 and stated that the rations would be increased as stipulated. Dr McCabe visited the School again in June 1944. Once again, she noted her dissatisfaction at the childrens milk and butter rations, which fell short of the quantities recommended by her: I insist that children should get 1 pint per head per day also their butter ration. Dripping as a substitute cannot be considered. 7.520 Dr McCabe questioned Sr Bianca regarding the shortfall in rations and was informed that the School could not afford the stipulated amounts of butter and milk per child. The matter was again taken up by the Department of Educations Inspector in a letter dated 6th July 1944. He reiterated that: CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 329
7.516
7.517
7.518
7.519
It is essential that each child should receive a minimum of one pint of milk per day and I must request you to arrange for this without delay. 7.521 He insisted that dripping was not an adequate substitute for butter. In September 1944, Sr Bianca informed the Department that each child in the School was getting her ration of butter and one pint of milk per day. In Dr McCabes next inspection report of 1st March 1946, she noted that the diet of the children had improved, with the milk and butter rations increased as stipulated. In a medical inspection of the children in February and March 1946, Dr McCabe noted that approximately 100 children had not satisfactorily put on weight since the last visit. The explanation given was that most of these children had influenza. A failure to gain weight was a serious matter and, in other schools where this occurred, was seen as evidence of malnutrition. It would appear that the explanation offered in this case was accepted. Sr Alida explained that, when she first arrived in Goldenbridge in 1942, the food was rationed. She confirmed that dripping was used instead of butter until 1954, when margarine was introduced. A churn of milk was delivered every morning from a local farm, which was sufficient to provide children with cocoa, tea and bottles of milk for the babies. She said that she was unaware of any correspondence from the Department of Education at that time concerning the inadequacies of the milk and butter rations for the children, as Sr Bianca would have dealt with such matters as Resident Manager. Throughout the 1950s, the food and diet of the children was described as very good by Dr McCabe. She spoke favourably of the food and diet when she inspected the School on two occasions in 1955. In particular, she stated that the meals were attractive, well cooked and attractively served. Dr McCabe retired in 1963, and Dr Lysaght inspected Goldenbridge on behalf of the Department in March 1966. He wrote a detailed report in which he noted that the children looked well nourished and healthy. He inspected the main meal of the day, which consisted of soup, milk, mincemeat, vegetables, custard and tinned pears, and he found that the amounts served were ample and well cooked. The School was aware in advance of Dr McCabes inspection, and ex-residents recalled that extra food was provided. Dr McCabe did not eat with the children, and based her report on observation of the food served on the day of her inspection. Sr Alida stated that the Department inspectors did not examine or taste the food that was given to the children: I cannot say that I ever saw an inspector with a spoon or anything tasting food, I cannot say I ever saw it. 7.528 The Inspector from the Department of Education always had her meal in the convent and not with the children in the dining room. Evidence of complainants 7.529 The majority of the witnesses who testified to the Committee complained of hunger and inadequate food during their time in Goldenbridge. They spoke of constantly being hungry. The quality and quantity of the food that was provided was the subject of numerous complaints by the witnesses. They also talked about the difference in the quality of food which the lay staff received compared to the food given to the children; the food provided to the staff was far superior in quality. 330 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.522
7.523
7.524
7.525
7.526
7.527
7.530
A witness described the difference: Oh yes. It was different, it was lovely to go in there, you could see what they were eating. They had a press with all kind of goodies in it ...
7.531
However, one witness stated that the food did improve after 1967, and she received lovely dinners after that time. One witness said: I remember being hungry all the time. Another said: I was always hungry, but then I have always had a good appetite but I never felt full. The only time I felt full if you went out with your family and you got sweets and things like that.
7.532 7.533
7.534
Another said she was hungry, and explained: Well, simply because we had so little to eat. I do remember all the girls used to eat, there were plants around a field, there was a hedge and we used to call them bread and butter plants. I remember that. We would eat the leaves off the hedges. Then from 4.30p.m. when we had supper which consisted of cocoa and bread and butter, that was it then, nothing else until breakfast the next morning.
7.535
One witness described the food as: basic. It was just bread and water or bread and tea and that was it. He also complained of not receiving enough food: ... because when the food was put on the table it was grabbed so you were either fortunate or you werent. A lot of the time I was unfortunate because I was very small anyway.
7.536
When asked about whether they ever got treats, another witness said: We did eventually as time went on. There would be a nice cake on the table for Easter or something, yes there was, but that would have been maybe twice a year, maybe Christmas. Yes, there was sometimes some treats.
7.537
One witness described the effect of lack of food on her, I used to eat compulsively when I came out because I was hungry in Goldenbridge. As she had younger siblings, she gave her portion of food to them: I used to often give my own food to the kids because they were forever hungry. I actually got a taste for eating wet muck because when I had a pain in my tummy I would eat that and it would take the pain away.
7.538
7.539
Another witness gave a similar account of the lack of food: Oh, the food. Today I have a serious eating disorder and I believe, in my opinion and in the medical opinion it has stemmed from Goldenbridge. The food was pure slop, to be honest. It was like lumpy porridge in the morning and cocoa that was like dishwater, very thin and bad looking. The evening was it wasnt porridge, it was bread and porridge. The meal at lunchtime was just like vegetables swimming in water. I dont recall much meat and I dont remember ever seeing a chicken.
7.540
She stated further: The food was very bad, but I noticed that no matter what slop they were giving me, and I use the word slop because to be honest we had no choice, we ate it, we were hungry. I was constantly hungry. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 331
7.541
Another complained of the constant hunger: Yes, food food food. We dreamed about it. I think, if I recall, I even traded sweets. We were like little animals. We were like little dogs. We traded bits and bits and bits ... I stole. I stole sausages, I remember.
7.542
Another witness said: There was never enough of it. It was only basics. Twelve slices of bread on the table, pre-buttered. Six at our tables, some tables would be bigger. You got two slices of bread and cocoa, and a cup of cocoa thats a fact. You would steal from anything, you would eat the crumbs. If you saw trays outside teachers thing, if you got into the place at all, you would know that somebody got trays at certain times in the day, you would be dying to get hold of the trays to see if there was anything left over on it.
7.543
Another witness, who was in the School in the 1960s, painted a picture of the meals in the School: ... in the mornings we either had bread or porridge. Oh, the porridge. I know they had to make it for a lot of people but the lumps, we used to heave trying to eat it. You had to eat it, there was no way you would leave it on the plate. Dreadfully to say, sometimes you tried to flick it on to somebody elses table, its a terrible thing to do but you did do that. I dont know what we were given for dinner. I know the potatoes were sour, not always sour but sometimes they smelled sour like sour milk. We had cabbage. I dont know what other vegetable we had because today I do love my food. I remember cabbage with these little tiny black flies that we used to pick out. You still had to eat it. The bread, I dont know what they did to the bread when you had breakfast time, but it used to have these hard lumps. The food, you had to eat it. There was no way you were ever going to leave it.
7.544
Another complainant, who spent four years in Goldenbridge from the early 1960s, stated that food served to the staff was very different to that served to the children. The cake crumbs, which the children scavenged, were leftovers from staff: The crumbs the crumbs and the bit of cakes would come from the teachers, there would be biscuits. It was a known fact that the teachers lived in the lap of luxury. They had proper food, they would have someone cooking, they would be called they knew their time for tea. So when we would be doing the wash up in the dining room you would try and get into the kitchen into their room to see if you could grab anything off the table ... when they werent looking. If you were caught with it in your mouth you would get a clatter. Positive witnesses
7.545
Evidence was also heard, at the suggestion of the Sisters of Mercy, from a number of witnesses who had positive memories of their time in Goldenbridge. One of these witnesses was committed to Goldenbridge in 1947 and remained there for 10 years. She recalled that the standard and quantity of food improved when Sr Alida took over as Sister in Charge. She stated: The food changed. We got extra food. We used to get afters, started giving us bread puddings and jelly and ice-cream and stuff. A little bit more food.
7.546
Another was asked whether she recalled being hungry, and she responded: Not really, not starving anyway. When I heard somebody said they were starved, if you are starved it means that you dont get any food; if you are starving it just means that you are possibly hungry. But there were three meals, there was porridge in the morning time, there was your dinner with sweet, it could have been Carragheen moss. Maybe the day that somebody put the currants in the rice or put the cocoa in the rice and rice came out brown but if you were bloody well hungry you would eat it. Some of them stuck their nose up at it and said they couldnt eat it but if you were hungry you would eat it. 332 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.547
Another positive witness, who spent eight years in Goldenbridge from 1948, stated that the food was very basic. She recalled receiving half a slice of bread for breakfast along with a cup of cocoa. Dinner consisted of stew, casserole or shepherds pie, and there was bread and cocoa again for tea. She accepted that she often felt hungry: I suppose I felt I was hungry. We didnt do anything about it. I would have liked to have been able to have some more.
7.548
Another positive witness remained for three years as a carer after her discharge date and, although she had more positive memories of the food, she did not distinguish between the food she received as a pupil and the food she received as a carer. Evidence of respondents
7.549
Sr Alida stated that bread was delivered every day except Sunday, and they had brack at the weekend. She recalled that the children got porridge, bread and butter for breakfast; dinner consisted of sausages, black and white pudding, or rabbit or mincemeat with vegetables. They had dessert every day, which usually consisted of a milk pudding. Vegetables were grown in the garden but, as it did not produce enough quantities, they were also purchased from the market every week. She accepted that, because the food was cooked for such large numbers, the quality of the food was affected. Sr Alida stated that the children had snacks between meals. Crates of fruit such as apples and oranges were purchased from the market on a weekly basis. She bought boiled sweets in bulk from a wholesale shop on Capel Street and broken Club Milk chocolate bars from Jacobs factory. None of the witnesses, even the positive witnesses, could recall anything like this type of food in Goldenbridge. Sr Bianca and later Sr Alida, when she took over as Sister in Charge, had their meals in the convent. The only meal they supervised in the Industrial School was dinner. Towards the latter stages of her management, Sr Alida recalled buying delph and cutlery in bulk and, by the time she left Goldenbridge, there was no broken tableware in use. She also recalled the kitchen facilities being up-graded with the addition of a gas cooker, toaster and deep fat fryer. She confirmed that there were no set menus during her time in Goldenbridge. Sr Alida said she never received complaints from the Inspector about the childrens food and diet. Sr Alida denied that scraps were thrown to the children in the yard, as alleged by some complainants. She added that, while she was in charge, no child would have been so hungry that she would have had to pick scraps of food from the ground. Sr Alida asserted that: one thing I cannot be challenged with is neglecting the food of the children or their clothes. Most certainly I never neglected I would have said that from '54 onwards the quality of food, cooking equipment, clothing etc., that I did my utmost to give them the best and they got it.
7.550
7.551
7.552
7.553 7.554
7.555
7.556
In a statement made to the Investigation Committee Sr Alida stated: I believe the children could have eaten more but they certainly did not go hungry.
7.557
Sr Gianna recalled accompanying Sr Alida to the market to buy trays of apples and oranges. Sr Alida recalled that there was dessert every day after dinner, which consisted of tapioca, corn flour, rice or jelly. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 333
Evidence of the Sisters of Mercy 7.558 The Sisters of Mercy denied that children were starving or malnourished in Goldenbridge. They conceded as a matter of probability that the quality of the food in the School during the 1940s was relatively poor, due to the war years and rationing in society generally. However, they asserted that the food and diet improved considerably during the period under review. The children were served with four meals a day, which were simple and adequate. They submitted that approximately 30 percent of the capitation grant was spent on food. In response to allegations by complainants of constant hunger, they stated that: food was not available between meals and this might have given rise to a sense of being hungry. 7.561 They also stated that the: more extreme allegations concerning inadequate food for the children are not accepted. Conclusions 7.562
7.559
7.560
Children were often hungry in Goldenbridge. The food was insufficient and of poor quality. Although improvements were made from time to time, the diet was never more than adequate.
Clothing
7.563 The Sisters of Mercy stated that clothing was an area where considerable improvements were made throughout the period under review. This would appear to be confirmed by the inspection reports from 1952 onwards. Before that, Dr McCabe was critical of the clothing of the children. Following an inspection in 1944, the Department of Education wrote to the Resident Manager requesting her to implement Dr McCabes suggestions, which included improving the cleanliness and tidiness among the children. Sr Bianca replied by letter and stated: We find it increasingly difficult to provide suitable clothing for the children and in many cases have to be satisfied with patching their old garments, but every effort is being made to secure personal cleanliness and neatness amongst them. 7.565 In a further letter of 15th June 1944 to the Department, Sr Bianca conceded that they could not properly clothe the children, but cited the inadequacy of the capitation grant as the cause: Having used all possible means to economise in food and clothing we find ourselves totally unable to meet the demands of our creditors. We owe large sums of money for clothing and the present maintenance allowance only suffices to feed the children, leaving no margin for clothing, so that we have no hope of being able to pay our debts on the present grant. 7.566 On 28th June 1945, Dr McCabe noted that the clothing was fair but could be improved. No further information is provided regarding how the clothes could be improved or the problem with them. The following year on 1st March 1946, she again described the clothes as fair but added that they were to be improved now that stocks are more easily obtained. The Department of Educations Inspector wrote to Sr Bianca on 22nd March 1946 on foot of Dr McCabes inspection, stating: 334 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.564
It is observed that the childrens clothing is not as good as it should be and it is hoped that with the supply position becoming easier, steps will be taken to make the necessary improvement in this matter. 7.567 By 1948, the clothing had improved. Dr McCabe described it as good. The same description was given following her visits in 1949 and 1951. From 1952 onwards, Dr McCabe reported that the clothes were very good. In her General Inspection Report of May 1955, she provided more detail on the quality of the clothing, stating: Brightly coloured attractive hand knit jumpers and skirts ... children very well groomed. 7.568 7.569 Dr McCabe did use the term very good in her Inspection Reports to describe clothing from 1956. Dr Lysaght, when he took over from Dr McCabe, commented in his report of 21st March 1966 that the clothes were good and sufficient. From then on until the closure of the School, the clothing of the children was not an issue. Sr Alida in her evidence revealed the nature and quality of the clothing of the children when she first arrived in Goldenbridge: The clothes were all handmade at that time, there wasnt a single garment that was bought. Skirts were made, nightdresses made and they were very basic altogether, the clothes were ... made from grey flannelette mainly. 7.571 She confirmed that clothes were handed down from child to child: ... They were passed down along the line. They lasted a long time. The nightdresses were grey flannelette mostly ... and those things had a long life compared with the garments we are wearing today, so there wasnt much new bought or many new clothes. 7.572 She acknowledged, however, that the clothing improved gradually from the time when she arrived: the poverty stricken look that was in Goldenbridge when I went there changed gradually, everything changed bit by bit. The clothes improved ... 7.573 When Sr Alida was asked whether she was aiming to get the children good clothing that wouldnt mark them out as institutionalised, and whether she dressed the children up nicely on specific occasions, she replied: What we had in the early days was certainly institutional gear. There has been complaints that the children were dressed up for occasions. I will be quite honest that the children were dressed up ... because there were visitors. 7.574 Sr Gianna, who worked in the School in the early 1960s, had a very positive opinion of the clothing situation, and stated that: My first impression when I came to the School was that the children had just beautiful clothes. I would also remember the Sisters in the convent, the children used to come up on a Sunday for Mass and a lot of the Sisters would make comment about how lovely they looked. They always had lovely white socks up to her knees, in the summer short white socks. They might have black patent shoes. They had lovely pleated skirts and none of them were the same, they were all different types of checks or plaids. They had nice coloured jumpers, different types of jumpers. I would have always seen them as very well clad. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 335
7.570
Evidence of complainants 7.575 Several of the witnesses complained that, when they first arrived in the School, their clothes were taken off them. One witness recalled being given clothes by people who took her out of Goldenbridge on holidays: Once you gave them up for the wash you mightnt see them again. 7.576 She specifically remembered that her ... confirmation dress was sent over from England. I wore it on my confirmation day, I never saw it again. I can still see it now, it was a red and white dress. One witness described her distress when she decided not to go to her mothers funeral due to the nature and quality of her clothing: Immediately I could see that we would stand out. We were looking different to other people. We had these institutional haircuts, up here somewhere, cut like a bowl around your head, and I was going to be dressed what Id like to call urchin ... Disgusting clothes. Thats not what I wore when I went out at the weekend to be with my father. I wore clothes he bought for me. 7.578 Another witness stated that, when she attended secretarial college while at Goldenbridge, she felt out of place due to her appearance and clothing: When you went to that place I was about 14 and a half and all these girls coming in, I am not vain, I dont go by appearances but my clothes were raggy compared to the young women that were going there. 7.579 This sentiment was echoed by a complainant who remembered how their clothing labelled them: ... we were labelled, we had it here, institution, Goldenbridge ... it was the way we walked, talking about walking. It was the clothes we wore. We tried to be fashionable and were big frumps. 7.580 Another witness was extremely critical of the changes of clothing and the clothing in general: There was very little changing of clothing. I think I wore I know when I went in first we wore like what they wear in Dickenss days, the pinafore. That was left on us for months and months and months, we didnt change that. 7.581 Some witnesses had positive comments to make about the clothes. One such witness remembered wearing nice jumpers and good clothes on Sundays: We had jumpers, we had Sunday jumpers, red jumpers. I am sure they were red. They were good jumpers for when you are going outside, going with a lady, you had your good clothes on. 7.582 Another said: ... What was very good every year in the summer Sr Venetia would get all new clothes and they were put away for us ... 7.583 Another witness pointed out that Sr Alida looked after the girls before they left, providing them with new clothes: Say when you were 16 and you left, you always left with new clothes. She made sure you had a new everything was new and you had a case; but if you left before you were 16 you wouldnt get as much but once you left at 16 you were rigged out from head to toe. 336 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
7.577
Conclusion 7.584 The children in Goldenbridge were conscious of their institutionalised appearance, and this contributed to the feeling of inferiority recalled by so many. However, clothing was adequate and, in particular, efforts were made to provide girls with proper clothes when they left the Institution.
Aftercare
7.585 Aftercare did not feature prominently in the testimony of witnesses before the Committee. The Sisters appeared to be able to find positions for most of the girls when they left at 16 years of age. Until the mid-1960s, almost all the girls entered domestic service, and this was the only industrial training they received. From the early 1960s, some girls were given the opportunity of attending secretarial college and training as childrens nurses. These girls were also found jobs when they left. Of more concern to witnesses was the lack of any preparation for dealing with the world and, in particular, the lack of any knowledge of relationships with men. Witnesses spoke of how extremely vulnerable they were on leaving the Institution. Even the circumstance of their leaving was handled in an insensitive way, according to many complainants. For most complainants, the day of discharge was the day immediately prior to their 16th birthday. For many, although they knew this was the case, the actual discharge event appeared to be sudden and unexpected. They spoke about being completely unprepared for this and of receiving very little encouragement or support from Sr Venetia as they left what was, after all, their childhood home. One complainant recalled being terrified when she was told she was leaving Goldenbridge. Another complainant said that every day in Goldenbridge she used to imagine walking through the gates and leaving it. When the day came that she was going home, she was petrified. She recalled being brought into a room in Goldenbridge and being told by Sr Alida that she was going: She gave me a pair of rosary beads and I left terrified, you would never believe ... I went back to my grandmothers from Goldenbridge. I didnt know how to speak properly. We spoke our own language, I know that you will find that strange. We were only children, we didnt grow up. We spoke differently to each other. If you were brought up for nine years in a home you all speak the same, you all speak the same language, I spoke this language. I was terrified of people. I walked, I had a stoop, my shoulders were bent ... I would not look at nobody. I would not look in your eyes, I couldnt. I was afraid ... I was afraid of everything and everybody ... I didnt know how to survive out there, this was a new world this was something. 7.589 She said that she did not feel normal when she left Goldenbridge, that she always felt bad, and she felt people were looking at her. She had no confidence and that, even now at 62 years of age, I will never have confidence because Goldenbridge took everything, everything from me as a child, everything, my childhood, everything. This complainant said repeatedly that she was stupid and that she looked stupid, and she said that most of the children who left Goldenbridge looked stupid. She said that she was treated as a bastard in Goldenbridge. Conclusions 7.591
7.586
7.587
7.588
7.590
Although girls were placed in jobs when they left Goldenbridge they were isolated and vulnerable in the outside world because they were ill-prepared for it and many had feelings of inferiority. 337
One of the reasons why girls were unprepared was the unworldliness of the nuns. The inadequacy of the preparation should have been addressed by the nuns in order to give the girls as much of a chance as possible in their adult life.
General conclusions
7.592 1. Life in Goldenbridge was full of drudgery. Children went from chores to the classroom to bead making without respite until bead making was discontinued in the mid-1960s. Staffing levels were poor, and children had to do a great deal of domestic chores. 2. Punishment in Goldenbridge was pervasive. Children were beaten for small infringements. It was unpredictable, arbitrary and led to a climate of fear, although after the 1960s it decreased significantly. 3. Goldenbridge was a closed institution with little or no contact with the outside world, and children became institutionalised as a result and suffered in many ways when they left. 4. Girls who were incapable of making their way in the outside world were kept on as carers, despite being wholly unsuitable. They treated children brutally and were able to do so without any control by the Sisters in charge. 5. Activities which need not have been abusive became so when excessive demands were placed on the children and fear of punishment was constant. 6. Some children were treated less harshly because they had relatives to look out for them. 7. There were no internal controls by the Congregation. Much of what was learned about the Christian Brothers industrial schools came from their own Visitation Reports but there was no such system in Goldenbridge. The Carysfort Mother House appeared to offer no guidance or supervision whatsoever and even the nuns in the Goldenbridge convent adopted a hands off approach. 8. The regime in Goldenbridge, which was flawed from the outset, did not change for 30 years. The Congregation did not learn from its experience of childcare. Other Orders, such as the Sisters of Charity, identified the need to rethink the system of large institutions caring for large numbers of children. The Sisters of Mercy have lamented the lack of any childcare training in the State, but organisations entrusted with the care of children could have developed training programmes for their members. The Congregation had the experience of childcare but failed to develop expertise. 9. The regime became kinder and more child-centred in the late 1960s and the number of complainants was small, which suggests that even though Goldenbridge was still a large, crowded institution, better management could have an important bearing on the quality of life of the children. 10. The Sisters in charge during the relevant period were harsh and unfeeling towards the children. Humiliation and degradation were constant occurrences, both from the Sisters and from the lay staff. The children felt that no one cared for them and that they did not matter. Even the members of the Congregation who spoke to the Committee failed to appreciate that Goldenbridge was abusive because of the attitude of the Sisters who ran it. Hard work and dedication were no excuses for a regime that made children feel despised and worthless. 11. The Department of Education inspections observed some problems but missed others. The Inspector did address the issues of food and clothing in the 1940s but, once these obvious problems were solved, the inspector did not report other, real problems of Goldenbridge, including the excessive chores, the pressures of bead making and the emotional deprivation. These problems could have been discovered by speaking to the children.
338
Chapter 8
St Michaels Industrial School, Cappoquin, County Waterford (Cappoquin), 18771999
Introduction
8.01 Cappoquin Industrial School is of special interest because it existed first in the form of a conventional Industrial School and subsequently as a group home, and in each of these manifestations it gave rise to major complaints of abuse. The story of the Institution highlights the need for proper management and supervision, whatever the structure of the care facility. In the early part of the history, there are examples of severe physical neglect, while the more recent period is dominated by other failures. This chapter also deals with certain allegations made by former residents of St. Josephs Industrial School for Boys, Passage West, County Cork, which was also under the management of the Sisters of Mercy. A sexual abuser moved from a School in Passage West to the School in Cappoquin therefore an account of his movements is relevant to the investigation of Cappoquin Industrial School as well as Passage West. St Teresas Convent of Mercy was established in 1850 in Cappoquin, County Waterford. St Michaels Industrial School was built in the grounds of the convent and, in January 1877, it received 36 boys as its first residents. The Industrial School only admitted boys, as there was already an Industrial School for girls in Waterford City. The accommodation limit of the School was increased from 51 to 65 in 1928, and from 65 to 75 in 1938. Until 1944, the State capitation grant was payable on only 51 of the children, as those under six did not qualify for a capitation grant; from 1944, it was extended to all 75 children. In 1969, the School was given permission to keep boys past the age of 10 and, in 1970, was permitted to admit girls for the first time. Until 1985, St Michaels Industrial School, Cappoquin was under the authority of the Sisters of Mercy, St Teresas Convent, Cappoquin, County Waterford. Accordingly, until 1985 the Mother Superior of the local convent, St Teresas held the highest level of responsibility for the Industrial School. In 1973, a site was purchased from the Cistercian Monks on the Melleray Road in Cappoquin, and two group homes were opened in 1974. For the purposes of this report, we have called these homes Group Home A and Group Home B. A third group home (which is referred to in this report as Group Home C) was bought as a temporary measure in 1976. The original Industrial CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 339
8.02
8.03 8.04
8.05
8.06
8.07
8.08
School closed in 1977. All the children in care at that stage were resident in the three group homes. 8.09 The ownership and responsibility for the group homes were transferred to the South Eastern Health Board in 2005. A total of 1,483 children were recorded in the admission register of St Michaels Industrial School over the entire period. For the period 1930 until 1983, the total number of children was recorded as being 582. In the period 1897 to 1960, it was understood that some 96 voluntary admissions were recorded for St Michaels. When the boys reached the age of 10, they were transferred to other industrial schools around the country. Most of the children were committed through the courts in the early years and came from the counties of Tipperary, Waterford, Cork, Wexford, Limerick, Galway, Clare and Dublin. The Mother Superior of the convent appointed the Resident Manager of the Industrial School and, during the period covered by the inquiry, there were seven Resident Managers, of whom four account for much the greater part. The documents available to the Committee included:
8.10
8.11
8.12
8.13
The reports of the General and Medical Inspections conducted by the Departments Medical Inspector, Dr Anna McCabe,1 following her appointment in 1938; Memoranda and correspondence between the Departments Inspectorate and the Resident Manager and Superior for St Michaels Industrial School following the Inspections; Memoranda and correspondence between St Michaels School and the Department in relation to the financial viability of the School, the reduction in pupil numbers, capitation grants and such like, and the plans to move from an institutional model to that of group homes.
Neglect
Sisters and staff working in the Industrial School
8.14 The pool from which the Resident Manager and the Sisters were drawn to work in the Industrial School was confined to the Sisters in the local convent, St Teresas. As there was no central organisation of the Sisters of Mercy at that time (this came much later), it was not possible to source Sisters from outside the Community of St Teresas. The number of Sisters resident in St Teresas during the relevant period was approximately 28 from 1940 to 1960, and decreased to 20 in 1985. Four Sisters worked full-time in the Industrial School; the remaining Sisters were engaged in other full-time activities such as primary and secondary teaching. There was a boarding school from 1963 and a commercial college. From time to time, a number of the other Sisters helped out in the Industrial School. The Sisters who worked full-time were assisted by a number of lay staff. It would appear from the records that in the region of four to five lay staff were engaged. Their numbers and roles varied from time to time, but usually included a matron, cook and various tradesmen.
1
8.15
8.16
340
8.17
One witness recalled: I kind of have memories of one nun looking after about 90 kids in the yard, or in the School, in very small rooms.
8.18
Another witness said that: The nuns had a supervisory capacity in the sense that they looked after the medical part of it and they looked after possibly the dormitories and things like that. But the lay staff had the day to day practical workings and they would get you in for your meals or they would get you ready for bed or they would get you for walks... generally the lay staff did that.
Approach of the Sisters of Mercy to allegations of neglect

8.19 In their Opening Statement, the Sisters of Mercy acknowledged that at times they failed the children in their care: ... Cappoquin industrial school went through particular periods of difficulty and there were undoubtedly times when children in our care suffered. We deeply regret the situation, as revealed by the Department records, regarding the diet and health of the children in the period 19445 ... We acknowledge that there were management difficulties in the 1980's, which must have impacted on the quality of care for the children ... As a Congregation, we are deeply sorry for our failings in the running of Cappoquin industrial school at these particular times and for the effect of this on the children in our care ... It is also true to say, however, that there were long periods of time when the school was viewed by the Department as being well run and the children well cared for.
Criticism of conditions during the 1940s

8.20 The early contemporaneous documents reveal a story of serious neglect of the children in Cappoquin. The Institution was overcrowded, and accommodated children in excess of its permitted certification number. The children were seriously undernourished and underfed. The Institution was managed by the same Resident Manager from the late 1920s to the mid1940s. The first surviving record of a General Inspection of St Michaels is dated 1939. The School received a clean bill of health from Dr Anna McCabe, who described the children as well kept and well fed. The next report was almost four and a half years later and dated 1943. Although this report refers to a previous inspection carried out the year before, there is no record of this inspection. Dr McCabe found on this occasion the following:
8.21
8.22
8.23
8.24
The School was overcrowded (91 children); The infirmary had been taken over as a dormitory; The food and diet was unsatisfactory, with a lack of butter, meat, bread and sugar. She carefully examined the amounts given to the children and considered they were all underfed and she gave the example of 7lbs of mince per day and 7lbs of butter per week being divided amongst 91 children.
8.25
Dr McCabe stated in her Inspection Report of 1943 that she had drawn the Resident Managers attention to the size of the children on several occasions, and the response she received was that CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 341
the children were very active. She was sceptical about this explanation, and she reported the situation to her superiors in the Department and advised them to write to the Resident Manager. 8.26 In December 1943, the Chief Inspector of Industrial and Reformatory Schools Branch wrote, on behalf of the Minister for Education, to the Superior of the convent to express serious concern about the under-nourishment and weight loss of the children, the overcrowding, and the lack of fire escapes. In a written response dated January 1944, the Superior said that the diet that had been approved by the School Medical Officer (a former Medical Inspector), and the advice of the present Medical Inspector had been adhered to. The lack of milk was explained by the difficulty in procuring milk and the proximity of two military stations. She robustly defended the Resident Manager, and described her as doing all in her power to keep the supply going, and expressed her satisfaction that there had been no neglect where the children were concerned. She acknowledged the overcrowding, and went on to say that steps would be taken to reduce the numbers to the accommodation limit. Notwithstanding the criticisms that had been made against her, however, she took the opportunity to request an increase of the limit to 80. She agreed that the fire precautions were inadequate and intended to consult a qualified authority on the matter. She stated that financial constraints did not allow for the building of a recreation hall, and she requested the Department to give them a grant for a new classroom and dormitory, thereby releasing the old classroom for a recreation hall. Dr McCabe did not accept the response of the Superior, and advised her Department that she could only go by her own observations the children had not gained weight over a period, and the only conclusion that could be drawn was that they were not getting sufficient food. The Department wrote to the Superior on 3rd February 1944 and requested her to get a report from her School Medical Officer as to why the children had not gained weight. This report was furnished to the Department by the Superior on 22nd February 1944. The School Medical Officer who wrote the report stated that he had agreed the childrens diet in conjunction with Dr McCabes predecessor, but had recommended that the diet be supplemented by cod liver oil. This was done for a short period, but discontinued during the emergency, and he suggested that the Department should now supply cod liver oil to the School. He also stated that all but one child in the School were abnormal, and this was why the children were small in stature. In her covering letter, the Superior stated that the Resident Manager found it impossible to supply the whole School with cod liver oil. Dr McCabe disagreed with the opinion of the School Medical Officer, and suggested that properly fed children did not need to supplement their diet with cod liver oil. The Minister for Education was informed of the response of the Superior, and a decision was taken on 14th March 1944 to send a strong letter to the School. The terms of the letter sent two weeks later were that the Department did not accept any of the reasons given by the Superior or the Medical Officer, and directed the Superior to inform the Department of what action she intended to take as soon as possible. The Superior responded that she had consulted with the Resident Manager and staff, and there had been no falling off in the diet of the children. She suggested that one explanation for the weight loss may be that there was too long a fast from the evening meal at 5pm to breakfast the next day. She proposed to introduce a slight collation before bedtime. She wrote that she found: ... it was almost impossible to secure sufficient milk, to allow a pint per day to each child ... I may add that as far as our judgement goes not to mention our good will every precaution is taken to secure the health of the children one of the few advantages that 342 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
8.27
8.28
8.29
8.30
8.31
8.32
will probably fall to their future lot ... Should it not be too great an intrusion the Resident Manager would feel grateful for the address of the firm which supplies Cod Liver Oil in bulk. 8.33 Clearly frustrated, Dr McCabe informed the Department that she felt the children needed to be properly fed, and wondered what the collation would contain. On 13th April 1944, the Department once again, wrote formally to the Superior, telling her the children were simply not getting enough food: ... The position is, however, that the dietary seems, in any case, to have been inadequate all along as evidenced by the failure of the children to put on weight in the normal way. What is required is an all-round increase in the amount of food given to the children and the Minister will be glad to learn that you have made arrangements to have this done ... It is noted that you have arranged for the issue of a collation before bed-time and I am to enquire of what it consists. 8.34 By letter dated 20th April 1944, the Superior acknowledged the Departments letter and said: ... With regard to the dietary, which had been approved of, no change has been made, with the exception of butter being served to all the children, since Margarine has been unprocurable. Each child receives one pint of milk per day more during the summer months The Collation consists of bread and butter, which makes a fifth meal each day ... If dietary counts in the matter of health, the immunity of the children of this school from sickness, should be some proof, at least, of the suitability of the food supplied. 8.35 Dr McCabe held her ground, and told the Department that she was quite satisfied that the diet was inadequate, and added that, in her opinion, the Resident Manager was a domineering woman who resented criticism and challenged advice. The Department decided to let matters rest for a period, as some changes had been made to the diet. They could then monitor to see if the children gained weight. They instructed Dr McCabe to go to the School in September 1944 and weigh every child. Dr McCabe visited the School on 21st August 1944 and, on the day in question, she reported receiving an excellent meal, and she stated: The day I visited the school there was certainly an excellent meal given and I intend to re-visit this school within the next few months to check up again however I feel if the children were always as well-fed as the day I was there that they should put on weight. 8.37 The children had not in fact put on weight and still looked undernourished. She suggested that a letter be sent to the Manager with the following recommendations:
8.36

8.38
To increase butter from 7lbs to 30 lbs per week; To introduce chips fried in dripping several times per week; To give all children a cup of milk or soup at 11am.
In an internal Departmental report dated 9th September 1944, the opening sentence set the tone, and went on to describe the appalling state of affairs that continued to exist: This is another school run by the Sisters of Mercy which has a long record of semistarvation. Dr. McCabe's report following her inspection last November disclosed such an appalling state of affairs that we went over the head of the resident manager and issued an ultimatum to the Manager. Dr. McCabe's latest report shows how far we have got. Out of 75 boys, 61 are under the normal weight for their age-height groups by from 3 lbs. to 21 lbs. The butter ration is exactly the same as it was in November, 1943 7 lbs. (At 6 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 343
ozs. per head it should be 28 lbs.) The boys continue to look pinched, wizened and wretched and look lamentably different from normal children. It is abundantly clear that the only hope of the required improvement lies in drastic action. The first and most obvious step is the removal of the present resident manager. Dr. McCabe informs me that she is a ruthless domineering person who resents any criticism and challenges advice. Her explanation of the children's failure to gain weight their "activity" rivals Marie Antoinette's "why don't they eat cake?". She has bedded down long since into a groove out of which she cannot be shifted by some annual criticism, and it seems clear that she holds the manager in the hollow of her hand. I see no hope of improvement while she continues in office. The state of affairs existing in this school is so deplorable and indefensible that I think further strong action is required. I suggest that payment of the state grant be suspended for three months and, that the manager be informed that there will be a special inspection say, early next December. If that inspection shows that the underfeeding has ceased and that the weights generally are on the increase and tending towards normality, payment will be resumed. If not, consideration must be given to the withdrawal of the certificate. I might mention that Dr. McCabe's account of the nuns' schools generally is most alarming. Underfeeding is widespread. In fact, she tells me that in only one school Kinsale is she completely satisfied with the diet. The general rule is what she describes as a bare "maintenance diet" sufficient to keep children from losing weight but not enough to enable them to put on weight at anything approaching the normal rate. A third junior boys' school run by the Sisters of Mercy Passage West is in the same category as Rathdrum and Cappoquin, and she proposes to visit it again shortly. She is strongly of opinion that we must hit the schools in their purses by threatening to stop grants and stopping them if necessary in one or two of the worst cases if we are to effect an improvement. This was followed by a series of notes between [the] (Inspector of Reformatories and Industrial Schools) and Dr McCabe. [The Inspector] was reluctant to take such drastic action as recommended by the Chief Inspector especially as he felt stopping the funds might make it worse for the children. Dr McCabe felt the only way to bring about improvement was to hit the school through the purse strings as similar action in other schools had brought about change. A decision was taken to insist on the removal of the Resident Manager with a follow up special inspection in three months. If conditions had not improved by then the grant was to be suspended. A further suggestion was mooted, to approach the Bishop of the Diocese, if things did not improve under the new Resident Manager. 8.39 On 21st September 1944, a statutory request from the Minister to remove the Resident Manager was sent to the Superior of the convent. This was accompanied by a strongly worded letter, setting out in detail why the Department could not allow the present state of affairs to continue: The Minister for Education has had before him the report of the Medical Inspector following on her recent visit to St. Michaels Industrial School, Cappoquin, and has learned with regret that the physical condition of the children continues to be most unsatisfactory. Only ten boys have reached the normal weight for their age. Sixty-one boys are below the normal weight by amounts ranging from 3lbs. to 21lbs. I have already informed you that the Minister cannot allow this state of affairs to continue. Repeated representations to the Resident Manager having failed to bring about the desired improvement, I am directed by the Minister to inform you that he is satisfied that the Resident Manager has failed to discharge efficiently the duties of her position and that she is unsuitable to discharge those duties, and I enclose a statutory request to you to remove her from her position. 344 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
8.40
The letter went on to state that, if St Michaels was to continue as a certified industrial school, it would be necessary to effect a radical improvement in the feeding and care of the children. To achieve this end, a Resident Manager who would take an active and sympathetic interest in the welfare of the children would have to be appointed, and she would have to comply with the suggestions and advice of the Medical Inspector. The Superior responded with a letter dated 10th October 1944, and asked that the Resident Manager be allowed stay on and promised that things would improve. The Minister, by letter dated 20th October 1944, refused to withdraw the statutory request. He again wrote on 6th and 7th November 1944, as he had not heard from the School about the new Resident Manager. On 11th November 1944, the Department received a telegram from the Superior to the effect that the suggested arrangements at St. Michaels School have been in effect since 21st ultimo. The Department understood this to mean that a new Resident Manager had been appointed. The Department then wrote to the Superior on 15th November 1944 and asked for the appropriate form to be completed with regard to the new Resident Manager. This elicited the following response from the Superior: Immediately on receiving a negative reply (22/10/44) to my request, that the then Resident Manager of St Michaels School, be allowed to hold the position provisionally, I appointed Sr. [Adriana]2 to fill the post. I thought it well to defer notifying this waiting the Inspectors visit. The strong censure contained in your Communication came as no small surprise, as apart from the failure of the children to put on weight we had no reason to think that Dr. McCabe was not satisfied with the general status of the School.
8.41
8.42
8.43
8.44
8.45
The Superior wrote to Dr McCabe directly on 27th November 1944 and suggested they meet to discuss the situation. A new Resident Manager
8.46
When the Department received the letter advising them of Sr Adrianas appointment, the Inspector of Industrial and Reformatory Schools sought Dr McCabes views, particularly in the light of the fact that the appointment papers revealed that Sr Adriana was in her mid-60s. In a handwritten note, Dr McCabe described Sr Adriana as second in command to the previous Resident Manager: She is completely under the influence of the previous occupant of the post. She is a bit of a martinet and in my opinion unsympathetic to children. In short, she is unsuitable for the appointment.
8.47
On 22nd December 1944, the Inspector wrote to the Superior, setting out all the points that had led to the decision to request the removal of the Resident Manager. He also pointed out that the new Resident Manager was unsuitable by reason of her age and her identification with the previous unsatisfactory regime: The unsuitability of the appointment is emphasised by the special circumstances in St. Michaels. As I pointed out to you in the course of our long correspondence early this year, the Minister for Education is satisfied that the former Resident Manager persisted, in the face of repeated representations from the Medical Inspector and the Department, in maintaining an inadequate scale of diet for the children.
8.48
The letter went on to remind the Superior that the diet was to have been improved:
2
345
Yet, when the Medical Inspector visited the school in August last, she found that the medical charts, far from showing the normal increase in weight which would inevitably have followed upon such an improvement in the diet, indicated that the weights generally were about the same as they had been on the occasion of her previous inspection in November, 1943. Generally speaking, there was no significant increase in weight at all. 8.49 The Inspector went on to say that because the Resident Manager had been: identified so long with this unfortunate state of affairs and had shown herself so unwilling to take the advice or act upon the recommendations of the Medical Inspector or the Department that it was felt that no improvement could be hoped for while she continued to hold office. 8.50 Because the new Resident Manager, Sr Adriana, had acted as assistant to the former Resident Manager, and because she was older than her predecessor, the Inspector regarded it as unreasonable to expect her to implement the fundamental changes and improvements that were necessary. He went on to address the Superiors surprise at the strong censure contained in his previous letter: I would impress upon you that this Department could have no graver charge against any school than that the children are not properly fed. As you said in your letter of 5th April last, health is one of the few advantages that will probably fall to their future lot, and underfeeding in their tender formative years constitutes the gravest threat to their enjoyment of it. The position of Resident Manager in a school like Cappoquin calls for a young, active, Sister who is sympathetic and kindly disposed towards children, and preferably one who has been trained as a nurse. 8.52 He concluded by arranging that Dr McCabe would visit the following month to discuss this and other outstanding matters, such as the accommodation limit, fire precautions etc, with the Superior. The Departments reservations regarding the suitability of the new Resident Manager were not acted upon. Dr McCabe visited the School on 27th February 1945 and, in a detailed handwritten report dated 12th March 1945, she advised the Department that the food had improved and the children had gained weight. She was still not happy, however, as she found that children had dirty necks and ears and, when this was drawn to the Managers attention, she said it was as a result of the boys playing about in the turf. Dr McCabe did not feel that this was from where the dirt had emanated. She discussed the School in general with the Superior on this visit, and asked her to provide a young, active sympathetic nun with knowledge of nursing for the role of Resident Manager. She was told there were only a small number of nuns in the convent and, as they were not tied in with any other convent in the diocese, they did not have a place from which they could transfer a nun to become Resident Manager. The Novitiate of the Congregation was in Waterford but, when nuns came from the Novitiate to the convent in Cappoquin, they were not transferred from convent to convent but from the National School to the Industrial School, or vice versa. In view of these difficulties and the more favourable report from Dr McCabe, the Department decided to give Sr Adriana a probationary period of six months and then arrange a formal inspection. This decision was conveyed to the School in a formal letter dated 9th April 1945. 346 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
8.51
8.53
8.54
8.55
Six months later, on 29th October 1945, Dr McCabe inspected the School and reported that she was satisfied with the way things were going in the School under the new Resident Manager. The annual inspection reports for the next five years refer to the food and diet as no more than satisfactory, although the School generally was deemed to have improved all round. The issue of inadequate diet arose in 1952, when Dr McCabe once again became concerned about the diet of the children. She reported that, although not ill, they were not too robust. There were a lot of children with runny noses, and she felt the diet could be more varied. She noted that the Resident Manager was keen to do her best. On her next visit on 21st October 1953, Dr McCabe noted a very big improvement in the food, clothing and school buildings. Dr McCabe paid 11 more visits to the School during the tenure of Sr Adriana. The reports were less detailed, and on occasions she reported a number of visits on one report. Overall, she described continued improvements being carried out. She mentioned Sr Adriana in most reports as being an excellent Resident Manager, kind to the boys, if a little old-fashioned. In her opinion, it was a well-run school, with the children well cared for. One witness, resident in the Institution for four years in the mid-1940s, recalled: ... Hunger, hunger was a big problem ... All the time ... I had a habit anyway and some of the other boys had a habit, if we got a crust for our supper or for our tea, we would divide the crust into small little pieces and keep it in our hand for the intervening period between the next meal and we would eat one of these things every few minutes. It was a small little crust. Thats what kept us going. Conclusions
8.56
8.57
8.58
8.59
The children were severely underfed for a long period in the 1940s and 1950s. On being told by the Medical Inspector that the children were seriously underfed the Superiors first priority was to defend the inadequate diet. The state of the children was not a concern for her. The Superior was arrogant and dismissive of the Departments complaints. The Manager was grossly incompetent but the Superior was determined to keep her in place. The Departments contention that conditions in Cappoquin were mirrored in other industrial schools run by the Congregation was an indictment of the Sisters of Mercy generally in respect of their care of children, and disclosed widespread neglect. The Departments assessment also represented an extraordinary admission of failure on its part in respect of its oversight of the system.
Buildings and accommodation

8.60 Although Dr McCabes early reports concentrated on dietary issues, she continued to comment on the need for improvement to the accommodation and sanitation facilities and, in particular, the lack of a recreation hall. In a report of the mid-1940s, she stated: I spoke again with the Manager about a Rec. Hall, she discussed with me several plans she had for improvement in this school and added if she could receive an extra allowance she would carry these out but of course without help financially she was powerless to make these desired improvements. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 347
8.61
8.62
Again, two years later, Dr McCabes report states: a plan has been discussed to have a recreation hall built but so far that is all.
8.63
In the late 1940s, the Inspector wrote to the Resident Manager expressing his pleasure with the overall improvement in the childrens health and well being, but noted the serious need for the following to be carried out as soon as possible:

8.64
improved sanitation facilities; erection of a recreation hall; provision of adequate fire escapes.
On receipt of this letter, the Sisters of Mercy informed the Bishop of Waterford and Lismore that the Department of Education had requested them to provide improvements, and sought his advice as to what they should do. He wrote to the Department and posed the question: Is it likely there will continue in the near future to be a demand for such schools in view of the increasing State grants being made available for widows, orphans, etc.? As the Head of the Diocese, I honestly feel unable to reply to the request of the Cappoquin Convent for advice and I would be grateful to you for a helpful direction in this matter. The numbers in the school may decline and the overhanging debt would remain on the Community which would have, so far as I can see, no means of paying it off.
8.65
The Secretary of the Department responded to the Bishop, pointing out that he did not accept that the Sisters of Mercy could not afford to make the necessary improvements, as they had had an increase in capitation grants recently, some of which was given on the basis that works would be done. Some other industrial schools had already made improvements, and some had borrowed to do so. He pointed out that Cappoquin had rarely been anything other than full to capacity, and any improvements would only enhance the value of the building should it be closed and sold off. The Sisters of Mercy also turned to a local TD, and the Department received a representation on behalf of the nuns, pleading that they needed assistance by way of a grant for the money needed to carry out the improvements. He was informed by the Department that there were no grants available and, when the capitation grants were increased in 1948, it was made clear that schools themselves would be responsible for the supply of equipment and building improvements. In the early 1950s, the Department granted the appropriate licence to the Superior to authorise the necessary works to be carried out to construct a classroom, toilets and general repairs to the Industrial School in Cappoquin. The new classrooms were built, and it appears that the works went ahead before the Department had finalised the paperwork necessary when schools were erected with State aid. The Sisters advised the Department that they had had to proceed because of the pressures from the Industrial School Section to provide recreational and sanitary facilities for the children. The old School had been condemned by both the Primary and Chief Industrial School Inspectors for a number of health and safety reasons. The Sisters had gone ahead with the building works and carried out a number of other renovations and extensions (e.g. new sanitary block and fire escape) for which they were not making a claim. They pointed out that the weekly allowance of 24s per head was entirely inadequate to feed, clothe and procure medical attention, as well as clear overhead expenses: wages of staff, matron, sub-matron, seamstress, laundress, nursemaids. The following year, a report was prepared for the Department containing the background as to how the Sisters came about erecting the new School. It contained debate as to whether the children could have been sent to the convent school in Cappoquin instead. However, the author 348 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
8.66
8.67
8.68
8.69
submitted that this would have caused accommodation and integration problems in the local school, and he recommended that the Sisters should be given the grant. 8.70 This was followed up by a further report that same year, in which the case was considered and a recommendation was made to pay the grant. Despite the recommendation to pay the grant, the Department was reluctant to apply to the Department of Finance for the funds, and had another inspection carried out by the Schools Inspector one year later. He also recommended that the grant be paid. He recognised that the parents in the local schools would not accept the industrial school children, and that there was no alternative but to educate them within the Industrial School. However, it was deemed inappropriate to remove the boys under six years of age from the external National School, because of the financial consequences for that school, and therefore, the Industrial School was only given twothirds of the cost of the building, as that represented the actual needs of the School. The Sisters had built a school large enough to accommodate 64 children, but the Department suggested that, as the proper size of the School would have been one to accommodate 48, the Department of Finance could base the grant on a pro-rata basis. In the early 1950s, the Department of Finance finally sanctioned a grant, which was two-thirds of the estimated cost of building the School for 48 pupils. Although the Sisters had erected a school big enough to accommodate 64 pupils, a report by an Organising Inspector to the Department of Education 10 years later found, that despite there being just 37 children and well equipped classrooms, the School was not sufficiently used. In the late 1960s, the Industrial Schools Branch of the Department of Education informed the Primary Branch that, in furtherance of the policy pursued for some years back of sending industrial school children to schools which cater for the local children, they proposed to amalgamate Cappoquin Industrial National School with the convent national school, and sought the views of the Primary Branch on the matter, asking them to state whether there would be any loss of income to the Industrial School as a result. Conclusions 8.75
8.71
8.72
8.73
8.74
Old unsuitable classrooms, poor sanitation and inadequate fire escapes were problems not addressed until the early 1950s. The children were all under 10 years of age and needed facilities for play.
The decline in numbers

8.76 Cappoquin, with an accommodation limit of 75, had never been a big industrial school and, because of the ages of the children, few of them were available to work on the farm or in trades that would have served the needs of the School. The School could not have been financially viable when numbers began to fall in the mid-1960s. In the mid-1960s, the Resident Manager wrote to the Chief Inspector of Industrial Schools advising him that numbers were declining in the School and expressing her disappointment that he had not managed to visit the School despite his recent journeys south. She advised him that the Congregation did not feel inclined to expend money on the premises of the School if it was doomed to closure. She requested that the Department should allow Cappoquin to keep boys up to the age of 16 years, as had recently been agreed for Mount St Josephs Industrial School, Passage West. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 349
8.77
8.78
Three months later, the Department received a further letter from the Resident Manager in which she advised the Chief Inspector that the numbers had fallen to 46 boys, and that the declining numbers were a source of anxiety to the Congregation who had put a lot of money into improvements over the years. She repeated her request to retain boys until they were 16, and emphasised the suitability of the local secondary school in the area where the boys could get a secondary education. Clearly frustrated by the lack of a visit from the Department, the Superior of the convent wrote to him again two weeks later, and impressed on him the urgency of the situation. She suggested that, if he could not come to them, they would come and meet him. Two months had passed since their request to hold on to boys until 16, and he had promised to visit within the week. There is no record of whether this meeting took place but, two years later, no progress had been made, as evidenced by the letter written by the Superior to the Chief Inspector which pleaded with the Department to help keep the School open: You must be aware that our numbers are exceedingly low now before 1st July, they will be reduced to nineteen a big drop from our original certified number which was seventy five! I heard that the Boys Jr. School Kilkenny will soon be converted to one for the handicapped Children. [I wonder if you heard that we made a big effort to get this place recognised for the Retarded but, failed, alas!] Now, you will appreciate the fact that it is a big disappointment to us, that this Institute here, will of necessity, come to an end, within twelve months from now. We spent thousands of pounds on renovations and improvements on it, in 19541955 of which [an Inspector] & Dr McCabe can assure you. In the light of all this, it would be a considerable help to us, and a favour we would deeply appreciate it, if you would be so kind as to send us the boys under 10 years from Kilkenny, when the time comes for their departure from there. We know that some of those children are from Cos Waterford and Wexford is it too much to say that we would have a little claim on these? I leave this matter to your kind consideration you have no idea of what it would mean to us to be able to keep this School opened for a few more years. Unfortunately, we are situated too close to three Boarding Schools, to be able to use this building for the same purpose.
8.79
8.80
8.81
In a handwritten note, the Chief Inspector wrote: spoke to Sr. (Superior) and indicated that she was pushing an open door that as many as possible consistent with the determining factors would be transferred to Cappoquin.
8.82
A month later, Dr Lysaght made a surprise inspection of the premises on behalf of the Department of Education. There were 32 boys there, all aged 10 or under. He recorded eight staff members, including the Resident Manager. He found the condition of the premises in good repair, and was informed that the Congregation had spent a lot of money on improvements and was most anxious about falling numbers. The Resident Manager feared they might have to close down. Dr Lysaght toured the building and was generally pleased with what he saw. He remarked on the good table manners displayed by the boys, and felt this was down to the efforts made by the Sisters with them. He thought the boys had a well-balanced and varied diet. He carried out a medical inspection, and raised a number of concerns about the arrangements in existence for dental treatment, which were not very satisfactory. The School in general had a happy and homely atmosphere. In the late 1960s, the Superior again wrote to the Chief Inspector, and requested that they be allowed to take girls as well as boys, due to a decrease in numbers. She also requested that boys 350 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
8.83
be allowed to stay until 12 years of age, in order that they could go to the local national and technical school for further studies. 8.84 In a Department memorandum, the view was expressed that there seemed no reason why these requests should not be granted, provided accommodation arrangements were suitable. It was also felt that it would be better to have siblings together. The Resident Manager raised again the following year the issue of allowing boys to remain until their sixteenth birthday, and the Department noted in an internal memorandum that this had been a success in Passage West. Accordingly, it recommended that St Michaels Cappoquin be approved for retention of boys until the age of 16. This was agreed by the Department some four years after the original request had been made by the Resident Manager. In 1969, Sr Carina3 wrote to the Department, seeking permission to allow five senior boys to receive secondary education in a nearby secondary school. The Department did not accede to this request. Later that year, the Resident Manager wrote to the Chief Inspector acceding to his request to take boys from Artane, which was about to close. She wanted boys as young as possible. In her original conversation with him, she had offered to take five, but now felt she could in fact take 10 and maybe, in time, more. A short time later, however, he received a letter from the Resident Manager in which she stated that, on mature and lengthy deliberation, the Reverend Mother and her Council: ... are of the opinion that we are not in a position at present, to admit pupils boys or girls, nor to take any in future. This means that we must regretfully disappoint you in withdrawing our consent to take boys from Artane School. 8.88 This brought the Chief Inspector to Cappoquin within a fortnight. He persuaded the Superior to withdraw the application she had made to close the School. In 1970, the Department certified St Michaels for the reception of girls and retention of boys until 17 years, with special permission. In 1972, two years after the publication of the Kennedy Report, a decision was made by the Department of Education, the Sisters of Mercy and Waterford County Council to erect a model group home in the grounds of St Michaels Cappoquin for 15 children of mixed sexes, on a site offered to them by the School Manager. This plan was the implementation of one of the major recommendations of the Kennedy Report. Later that year, a Department Inspector carried out a general inspection. It is worth noting that the previous inspection by Dr Lysaght was in 1966 a period of six years had elapsed since the Department had carried out an inspection. The Inspector found 67 children in care. He noted that, of all the schools he had visited so far, Cappoquin was most in need of an upgrade. He was encouraged by the fact that one of the Sisters had just completed the Kilkenny childcare course and was in England on a placement. He was informed that the plans for a group home were being drawn up, and the Resident Manager was most anxious to get this underway, as one of her main problems was overcrowding. The Inspector noted that, although the plan was to move in the direction of group homes, no extra effort was being made to introduce any form of grouping. The Resident Manager, although active
3
8.85
8.86
8.87
8.89
8.90
8.91
8.92
8.93
351
and devoted, was too old and worn out, and the authorities were further handicapped by recurring staffing problems. The staff numbers at the time were two full-time Sisters, one temporary fulltime Sister, one Sister in charge of the kitchen with a lay assistant, two part-time Sisters and four lay staff. A nurse called every few weeks. 8.94 A group of Departmental officials visited St Michaels Cappoquin in 1972 to further the group home scheme and select a suitable site. They agreed with the proposal from the Superior that they should buy a site from Mount Melleray Abbey, as it had the advantage of proximity to the convent. The report, drawn up by one of the Department officials following this visit, made a number of observations regarding the difficulties facing St Michaels: A factor in the unsatisfactory condition and management of the residential home in St. Michaels has been that it is looked upon as the poor relation by the Convent and has not been properly supported by it. Discreet hints were given to [Sr Clarice]4 that the residential home demands attention as good as can be given to any sector of the Convents education Commitment ... ... At present there are 65 children in the residential home which is too many for the kind of set-up there. Apart from this, a small town like Cappoquin would not find it easy to absorb and integrate a community of children as large as the present. Add to that the difficulty in getting the Convent to allocate suitable staff to St. Michaels in adequate numbers and the future might seem most appropriately to lie with two modern, well-staffed group homes accommodating a total of about 30 children between them. 8.96 A general inspection carried out in the mid-1970s recorded that 65 children were in care. It noted that only 12 of these were formally grouped (the 12 youngest), with a full-time lay worker and a Sister on a part-time basis as their staff. The two group homes were well under construction. In 1976, the Department of Education appointed Graham Granville as a childcare advisor to the Department of Education and Inspector of Residential Childrens Homes and Special Schools. This position was one of the recommendations made by the Kennedy Report in 1970. The first general inspection report from Mr Granville is dated 2nd April 1976 and, by then, two group homes had been opened in the grounds of Cappoquin, with a number of children still accommodated in the old Industrial School. He was disappointed with his visit and found an air of complacency in the old Institution and the new group homes. The Resident Manager and her assistant were very elderly and had only two very young staff to assist. The children in the old premises were divided into three ill-defined groups and: I can only express my very grave concern at the extremely low standard of care that is available for the children. I believe that the present environment is damaging by the very nature of its institutional primitive appearance, it is lacking in warmth and consequently, I would question the quality of care being applied for the children. 8.100 The report continued in a critical vein: he noted that there were serious staffing problems for some time and, in fact, in the previous 12 months they had to dismiss a staff member following complaints from a parent to the medical officer in the area. The two new group homes had a young nun in charge of each, who were trained social workers, and a very limited young, inexperienced staff:
4
8.95
8.97
8.98
8.99
8.101
352
The Sisters in charge at the New Group Homes have transferred some of ineffective child care practises into their Homes. I am most concerned about their attitudes and approach to the work, they are lacking any impetus and they are negative in a number of ways. 8.102 He decided to return to Cappoquin within a week and speak to the Reverend Mother in private about the situation. She agreed with his suggestion that the way forward was to phase out St Michaels over a five-year period and move towards group homes. Later that month, in an internal memorandum, a senior Department official, having read Mr Granvilles report, suggested that the root cause of the problems in Cappoquin was the lack of male staff in a school that had, until recently, been a home for boys. Mr Granville confirmed that, even with normal discharge, it would take several years to reduce the numbers in Cappoquin to the ideal of about 30, with 15 in each group home. There was general agreement with Mr Granville that the old building needed to be phased out as soon as possible. In June 1976, Mr Granville furnished a confidential report to three senior officials in the Department of Education, following a visit to Cappoquin when he met with the Resident Manager, and a child psychiatrist who later joined their meeting. His findings were so serious that it is necessary to quote the report extensively: I visited Cappoquin, St Michaels Convent ... and observed the following points which I discussed with the Resident Manager, [Sr Carina] as I have done on previous visits of mine to Cappoquin. At the latter part of my visit [the child psychiatrist] arrived at St Michaels. (1) The old Convent is in a very serious situation as to the ability to continue to provide Residential Child Care. (2) There are neither in my opinion the resources nor the facilities to provide for the basic needs of children listed as per attached. (3) At present there is only one group of children, principally boys, but including two girls, who are nice children but are having bad experiences in the group. That statement is a personal observation and staff confidential views. (4) The older boys who should have been discharged now are bullying the younger children, both physically and emotionally. I have consistently advised [Sr Carina] to discharge these boys and to the full nature of the problems that are happening within the precincts of the Convent. This has been confirmed to me by staff that bullying is taking place. There are also a cross-section of problems happening in the Town of Cappoquin that without doubt are the result of institutionalisation and negative Child Care attitudes. (5) Problems are now being encountered by younger boys who clearly wish to follow the patterns of their peers, and subsequently [Sr Carina] and [the child psychiatrist] wish to transfer these children ... The inappropriate transferring of children has to cease at Cappoquin from St Michaels. (6) There is a grave danger that the attitudes of the Nuns at St Michaels will perpetrate into the new Group Homes. In fact it has done so to some degree where I know that children are sent to bed for some problem by Lay Staff and ignored. Modern Child Care practice contains ample sanctions, if skilfully and professionally applied but the above practice is both detrimental and damaging to any child and there is absolutely no reason for the above practice. (7) There is a grave danger that this Residential Child Care Centre may be subjected to a Press campaign. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 353
8.103
8.104
8.105
(8) The Rev. Mother and myself have discussed these issues, she is extremely concerned. (9) Can we request that [Sr Carina] be relieved of her post and Sister [Isabella]5 who works at St Michaels. (10) [The child psychiatrist] has a tremendous influence at St Michaels. As he is no longer attached to the ... Health Board I suggest that St Michaels use the appropriate Psychiatrist on the Health Board. (11) Money is being mis-appropriated for the use of past pupils who do not make any contributions to their care and the Department of Education does not pay any Capitation, as they are over-age. (12) If the Group size was reduced drastically at St Michaels to 1 of 12 children plus 2 Lay Staff and 1 Nun as Resident Manager one should see a marked improvement in overall care attitudes. (13) I am going back on the 26th / 27th July to review the whole of the committed children at St Michaels and have staff meetings with all the Nuns and the Lay Staff together with the Rev. Mother. (14) We are in the area of malfunctioning and nearing neglect totally of the childrens emotional needs, and we consequently have to scrutinise the future of St Michaels very closely or the Department could be seen to be colluding with St Michaels Child Care practice. 8.106 Following the June 1976 visit to Cappoquin, Mr Granville met the Resident Manager and expressed his concern about the presence of older boys who were former pupils and who should have been discharged. He was particularly concerned about two young girls among the children in the institution. Mr Granville paid a two-day visit in July 1976, and the problem of the older boys had clearly not been addressed, although he got a commitment that they would be sent out to lodgings. He noted that there were 29 children divided between two group homes, and the Resident Manager had 23 in the old building. She assured Mr Granville that she would make a sincere effort to create another separate unit to accommodate 12 younger children in the near future without support from the Department of Education. The 11 remaining children could then be housed more comfortably in the Institution with some re-arrangement of the existing rooms. Staff shortages, and one or two particularly difficult children, were stretching the capabilities of the staff. He met all the staff, including lay staff, and discussed the needs of the children on this visit. In a follow-up letter, Mr Granville set out in clear terms the steps to be taken to improve the situation. These included the discharge of a number of children, regular reviews of the childrens progress, regular staff meetings, and better contact with the social workers with regard to Health Board children, and he enclosed a number of Master Index Books for record keeping. He decided for the time being not to transfer some of the younger children out of Cappoquin, on the assurance from the Resident Manager that she would follow up the proposed new unit. A bungalow was purchased by the Congregation in 1976, and the Department agreed to help with the cost. By November 1976, the old building had been vacated and replaced by the two purpose-built group homes and the new bungalow.
5
8.107
8.108
8.109
8.110
8.111
354
8.112
This was when the Industrial School ceased. Letters and correspondence from then on appeared on notepaper headed St Michaels Childcare Centre. Conclusions
8.113
Children were sent to Cappoquin not because it was suitable for their needs but to keep the Institution open. When falling numbers jeopardised the existence of the School, the nuns threatened to resign their certificate unless more children were assigned to Cappoquin, and the Department acceded to the request, notwithstanding the serious deficiencies of which it was aware. The Departments own files contained evidence of the troubled history, inadequate facilities and poor management in the Industrial School which should have led to serious concerns about the placement of more children there.
The era of the group homes

8.114 For the period 1977 to 1990, the average number of children accommodated in the three new group homes was approximately 50. It appears from the documentation that the aim was to try to get this number reduced to an average of 30 between two group homes, Group Home A and Group Home B, with 15 in each. In the late 1970s, the Resident Manager, Sr Rosetta,6 notified the Department that she had appointed Sr Callida,7 then House Parent in Group Home A, to be her deputy. In May 1978, the three group homes had between them 48 children under the care of 10 fulltime staff. In 1978, Mr Graham Granville carried out a three-day general inspection and, overall, he was satisfied with the homes. He was not happy at the lack of social work support for the children, but commented favourably on other aspects of the facility. He thought the environment in the group homes was excellent, although he did highlight the need for refurbishment in the two original houses. Mr Granville observed that there was a major problem on the educational front if the children were to be considered for technical/vocational schools. He also noted that no male staff had been employed because (a) no suitable candidate had applied, and (b) past experiences had caused problems of quality of personnel. In a letter to Sr Rosetta, he outlined some of his observations and recommendations. He said that: ... overall there has been constructive valuable improvement in the residential child care policy that is showing results in the elements of human relations and child development. 8.120 He went on to praise the contributions of the three Sisters who had taken charge of the three group homes: The influence of Sisters [Isabella], [Eloisa]8 and [Callida] is to be commended within the group homes. And consequently their direction and evidence of the care staff is meaningful.
6 7 8
8.115
8.116
8.117
8.118
8.119
355
8.121
He recommended that punishments should be recorded, and that the Manager maintain a record of major punishments that may be administered, noting the name of the child, date of punishment, reason for punishment and punishment administered. No record of corporal punishment was kept. Mr Granville made strong recommendations on what qualities a new Resident Manager should possess, stressing the importance of proper record-keeping and communication with the childs family and with social workers: That any future change in the Resident Managers part should consider (a) that the Resident Manager has to adopt a major leadership role. To be representative of the Communities child care policy at all levels and to ensure that this policy is practiced by all the care staff in the group homes.
8.122 8.123
8.124
He recommended that the children should be allowed every opportunity to develop their individual personalities. They should also be encouraged to forge links with their homes. Because the group homes would afford a more normal experience of growing up, he thought that boarding-out of children for weekends and holidays would no longer be necessary. Finally, he hoped that male staff could be employed in the future. In a number of internal handwritten documents within the Department, efforts were made to try to expedite the re-furbishing programme and explore what the Department could do to improve the chances of the children attending secondary level schooling. Later that year, Sr Rosetta formally advised Mr Granville that, owing to extreme pressure of work both at school and community level, she had to resign as Resident Manager, and appointed Sr Callida in her place and Ms Noonan9 as co-ordinator from that date. Sr Callida
8.125 8.126
8.127
8.128
Sr Callida had been in charge of Group Home A since it was first set up in 1975, when she began with 17 children in care. She had no staff initially and was told to recruit her own team. When she took over the role of Resident Manager, she said that her objectives were to give the children stability, consistency and continuity. She also hoped to concentrate on education, health and development. She moved into a room in one of the homes, Group Home A, and set up her administrative office there. She continued as Resident Manager until the early 1990s, when she was removed following the resignation of two lay care workers and an investigation into complaints against her. Mr Granville did not immediately appreciate the problems that were developing following Sr Callidas appointment. Sr Callida appeared to perform her duties as Resident Manager well and took a particular interest in the childrens education. Over the next two years, Mr Granville noted that the children seemed happy, although he was concerned at the lack of visits from social workers and the lack of contact with the childrens families. Mr Granville carried out a General Inspection in the early 1980s. He noted that there had been staff problems but he did not specify what they were. He said that he had discussed them with
9
8.129
8.130
8.131
8.132
8.133
356
the people concerned, and he attributed them to the inexperience of Sr Callida, the Resident Manager. 8.134 He concluded that Cappoquin was going through a slightly chequered period in their development and saw no reason why the present turbulence cannot be overcome and a stable path be once more achieved. In a letter to the Reverend Mother of the Cappoquin Community, he suggested that she bring the three Sisters in charge of the group homes together to try to formulate a unified childcare policy. He suggested that: the three religious Sisters meet weekly as a team to coordinate and cooperate in the child care practice. At the moment there are three distinct autonomous units in operation and it would be my opinion that weak links have been provided with an opportunity to grow, and that has not been in the interest of the child care practice. 8.136 8.137 He also recommended that a deputy be appointed to cover periods when Sr Callida was absent. An abbreviated version of the same letter was sent to Sr Callida, Resident Manager, with a number of suggestions, including delegation of full responsibility to Sr Isabella during her absences and the holding of regular staff meetings to build up communication. Other problems were emerging. The numbers of children in care were dropping and one of the houses was under-occupied and over-staffed, which had serious financial implications for the Congregation. In addition, the lack of any social work intervention, especially for the children committed by the Department of Health, who did not come under Mr Granvilles remit, was causing serious concerns in the Department of Education. At around this time, however, staff in Group Home A, the group home managed by Sr Callida, were becoming increasingly alarmed at how the house was being run. Evidence of former care staff 8.140 Evidence was given by three lay staff members who worked in the homes under Sr Callidas management and two of whom made complaints at the time. Ms Linehan10 worked in Group Home A from the early to late 1980s. She began work immediately after leaving school as a carer and, after a few years, was appointed as House Parent in Group Home A where Sr Callida was Resident Manager. She said that, although the children in Group Home A were well provided for materially, and all their basic needs were met, they were not cared for emotionally. She said they were afraid of Sr Callida, and that she herself had witnessed a child with marks on her leg as a result of a beating from Sr Callida: It was the first time I had seen marks on a child there. And it was a shock and it was a surprise to me. Although that was the only time she had seen evidence of Sr Callidas treatment of the children, There was other times when kids said that she did hit but I was never there and I never heard. Ms Linehan said that at the time she did not feel she was in a position to question the way Sr Callida managed the home. She said there was a regime in place that she could not question, although she would have disagreed with aspects of it: A lot of the time I would be afraid to speak out ... I was afraid to lose my job maybe.
10
8.135
8.138
8.139
8.141
8.142
8.143
8.144
357
8.145
Everyday issues were handled harshly: I just felt it was too strict and just different things, every day things like that. You know, I mean when I look back on it it was again the time where it was very, very strict being in care for kids, very, very hard.
8.146
Although she accepted that it was a different era and childcare practices were different, she believed the regime was unnecessarily hard: Looking back on it. But I think sometimes Callida could have made it a little bit easier for the children to be in care, because being in care was hard enough, being there without your parents, and then having somebody sometimes so strict on you, I think was hard.
8.147
She felt unable to express disagreement with Sr Callida, and none of the other care staff were able to do so either. She described Sr Callida as a very strong person and when she said something that was it, you had nowhere else to go. This ex-staff member was concerned about three specific issues in Group Home A:
8.148
She did not think that it was appropriate for past pupils to stay in Group Home A with the children. She believed that some of them were a bad influence on the children. Past pupils were not allowed to stay in either of the other group homes only Sr Callida allowed it. The Department had been concerned snce 1976 about the practice of past pupils being allowed to stay over. They had been assured that the practice would cease and that lodgings would be found for the ex-pupils elsewhere. However, in Group Home A the situation was allowed to continue. Sr Callida went absent for days at a time, without giving any prior notice, and without leaving any contact address or number. The witness, who was in her 20s, was left in charge of up to 16 small children without any support from the Resident Manager or any other Sister in Cappoquin. Sr Callida regularly drank alcohol usually whiskey in the group home. She said that this occurred in the evening and was often in the sitting room in front of the older children. She said that Sr Callida would not be so drunk as to be falling all over the place or anything, but I felt at the time it was drunk when she would slur a word.
8.149
She did not believe that Sr Callidas drinking affected the day-to-day running of the home, but it did affect her personality: I suppose not as the running of the everyday stuff, because the staff, I think, would do a lot more of that, of the running of the house and the caring of the kids. But I just felt sometimes that it probably affected her personality, maybe the day after or something that she would be a little bit hung over. Maybe that affected her work.
8.150
Another ex-staff member who worked in Group Home A immediately after Ms Linehan left confirmed this witnesss account, although she was more critical of the impact of all the problems on the children. Ms Tierney11 started work in Group Home A in the late 1980s when she was aged 20 years. She had no experience in childcare, having worked in an office previously: [Group Home A]. My first impressions were of all these dirty scruffy children. That is an awful thing to call them but that's what it was. It was just a chaotic house and there were just children everywhere. The first day I went there Callida was on her own and there were just small children all around the house, all over the place, and the house was very
11
8.151
358
shabby as well ... At the time I started there, there were 10 to 12 children living in the house ... 6 months to 16 years. It was just a very chaotic place to work. I didn't really understand the workings of the place or anything like that. As a staff team everyone seemed to be afraid of Callida. Any time I would answer the phone it was like "is she there?" That was the first reaction, "Is she there? 8.152 There was no proper routine, no timetables and new staff just fell in with the household duties and minding the children: We were basically there to mind the kids, a house full of children, and very young children. At one stage there was seven of them under five. You would be on your own with them. At the time there seemed to be really a lack of staff there. For a space of two months or three months there was two of us working on our own, back to back. We did a 14 day stint, back to back twelve hour shifts, with no support from anyone. I was often there on my own with 12 children ... I was on my own a lot there. You would have to get up and get a load of them out to school, get their breakfast and get them all out to school and then you had four or five toddlers at home all day. And you had to clean the house as well. It was very hard. 8.153 She found communication between management and staff was non-existent. It was a frightening place to be for staff and children, and she did not feel safe. The two group homes were pitted against each other. The children in Group Home A looked down on the children in Group Home B. Toys and clothes were in better supply in Group Home A. There was no support from social workers. Ex-residents frequently arrived at the home and were allowed to sleep over. One particular ex-resident was an older man with a history of alcohol and drug abuse. The children were terrified of him. She witnessed the Resident Managers abuse of alcohol on numerous occasions, both inside and outside the group home. Ms Tierney said that Sr Serena,12 the Superior of the convent often stayed overnight in Group Home A with Sr Callida. This Sister did not interact with the staff at all but, she said, had a particular child whom she singled out for attention and whom she would keep with her during her visits to Group Home A: She just was around all the time. She was around all the time ... Every day after work she would come and she would call into our place most days after work. It was a regular occurrence. She would stay and wander around and she would be down to Callida. She had a little pet that was her little pet, one of the kids that was there, and she would come in and she would make a big fuss over this child and hold her hand and wander around and really make the rest of the kids feel very inferior to this one particular child. 8.155 Sr Serena and Sr Callida went up to the convent at about 6pm for prayers, and then they would return to the Home for the evening. They went away together quite often without giving notice. Sr Callida had a little girl who slept with her at night, and she would sometimes take that child or other children with her on her excursions: Also, the fact that the kids slept in the bedroom, and she nearly always had a young child sleeping in the bedroom with her. It just became a habit over the years. Some of the staff used to try and get the child not to go in there but the child just always went in and she always brought her in. When she would go down to bed at night she would bring her with her.
12
8.154
8.156
359
8.157
When Sr Callida went away: She used bring her with her most of the time. Most of the time they would bring some of the younger kids away with them.
8.158
She was not told where the children were or how long they would be gone: No. We might be told, maybe, to pack a bag for someone an hour before they went, but that was about it. We just weren't important, we weren't told anything. We weren't told anything.
8.159
Ms Tierney recalled one occasion when a man walked into the Home accompanied by two other men and took his children away. Sr Callida left within half an hour and did not return for two days. In the meantime, this young care-worker did not know where the children were or whether the Garda had been informed about their removal. She said she was very traumatised by the incident and was frightened that the father would come back in the night. She described Sr Callidas drinking: She was well noted for it in the town ... Any time I met her out, if I was in an occasion to meet her in the pub, she would be very drunk.
8.160
8.161
She recalled on one occasion that Sr Callida was so drunk that she fell into the playpen on top of one of the children. She said it was a regular occurrence for Sr Callida to be drunk in Group Home A: That was a regular occurrence, very regular occurrence. There was no big secret about it, everyone knew, everyone knew she drank. That's what I found very hard to understand how everyone in the community knew what she was like and fellows knew that she was pissed going around the town and she would be out at nightclubs and different things.
8.162
8.163
In addition to the drinking, Sr Callida also entertained past pupils in Group Home A at night and allowed them to stay there: The night that I remember Mr Owens13 being there, there were five men in the house that night stayed overnight that night. Two of them were ex-residents and two of them were total strangers. But she would leave the house then.
8.164
Ms Tierney was uneasy caring for the children in the house on her own: You would have them coming and going during the days. At the weekend, you wouldn't know who you just never knew who was going to turn up at the place or what was going to happen. It was just chaos.
8.165
She described how she and the children were frightened by one of these visitors: They were scared that night that Mr Owens was going around the house ... we went down to the bedroom and I had a couple of teenagers in the room with me and we all stayed there that night because we were all frightened of him. I am sure there was times when they were frightened.
8.166
Matters came to a head in the early 1990s. She realised that the children needed better support and it was not forthcoming. Having spoken with her family, she decided that she should report her concerns to the Reverend Mother of the Diocese and that she would then hand in her notice. Within two weeks, the Reverend Mother came to the home and interviewed staff.
13
360
8.167
Another witness, Ms Waters,14 was House Mother in Group Home B, the second group home at Cappoquin from the 1980s, and she gave evidence about her serious concerns at the way Group Home A was run and the impact this had on the children there. Ms Waters started work on a part-time basis in Cappoquin in the mid-1970s, shortly before it closed as an industrial school. She did not have any formal childcare training, apart from completing a correspondence course in the early 1980s. Eventually, she became House Mother of Group Home B in the mid-1980s. She spoke of her earliest recollections of Cappoquin: My recollection was, you know, to bring up kids being a mother myself and to bring up kids in a home I found it always very sad for kids, you know, and I could identify with them, the sadness they were going through ... I came from a loving home myself.
8.168
8.169
8.170
She commented on the lack of love shown to the children: I found the set-up, there was a lot of children ... there was plenty of food, but giving them a hot meal and giving it to them with love, you know, and things like that, I found that was a bit lacking, you know ... and kids coming from different background and sadness, you know, it was I felt kind of shocked because I hadn't experienced that kind of thing.
8.171
From the time that Sr Callida became Resident Manager of the two group homes in the early 1980s, management problems arose almost immediately, as had been identified by Mr Granville in his General Inspection Report of this time. Ms Waters gave evidence of a system that was incapable of delivering a proper level of childcare. One of her main problems was the lack of respect shown to the care staff by Sr Callida that led to unhappiness amongst the staff. They were not consulted about anything and were not even given notice of their work schedule, which was often delivered a day in advance on the back of an envelope. There was no regular timetable for rostering of staff, which made family life for the care workers very difficult. In addition, she identified differences in the way the two homes were run. Group Home A, which was managed directly by Sr Callida, received preferential treatment in terms of finance and facilities, which impacted on the children in Group Home B. There was very little communication between the two homes. Although she reported directly to Sr Callida, she rarely saw her. There was no formal system for staff meetings or meetings to review the childrens progress. She tried to talk to Sr Callida about the problems but she was not willing to listen. She also recalled that, during this time, there was no support from social workers for the staff and children. She was also aware that children were experimenting with each other sexually and reported this to Sr Callida. She felt there was a need to give the children some education in the facts of life, to make them more aware, and she communicated this to the Resident Manager, but this did not happen. Ms Waters gave an example of one incident where three children from the home two boys and a girl were alone in the fields adjoining the home: I remember ringing Sr Callida and, you know, my worries about the girl being down with the boys and she just kind of it came up in the conversation I said, "what about if the
14
8.172
8.173
8.174
8.175
8.176
361
girl gets pregnant?" And she kind of laughed at me and said, "it wouldn't be you that made her pregnant." I wasn't getting anywhere ... I went down through to the fields ... it was a very wet evening, and I had difficulty in walking through the wet the grass was very high, it was all wet. I went down and I brought her up and the two lads went off, you know. But it was with great difficulty, she was rude and nasty to me now, but she did come up with me. 8.177 Although she spoke of her concerns to the girls social worker, she received no help or support from her and was left to handle the situation herself. She said she was aware that there was a lot of drinking going on in Group Home A. Parties were held in the home, and former residents and student priests came and stayed overnight. This practice was not allowed in the home in which she was in charge, as she simply did not allow it to happen. In her opinion, the children in Group Home A were not being adequately supervised and the staff were very young: Well there was a lot of, there was a lot of drink going on, you know ... You know, I was never in the parties, but the gossip went on that they would be drinking in the house and there would be people coming visiting and there was drinking. Not in Group Home B but in Group Home A. I witnessed Sr Callida coming ... into Group Home B at one stage and she had drink ... Her voice was slurred, you know, and things like that. 8.179 She described an occasion soon after the appointment of Sr Serena as Reverend Mother to Cappoquin: I remember that day, Sr Serena had just started, she was just made Reverend Mother and she had visited Group Home B that evening, we arranged that she come and have tea with the kids and staff and Sr Callida came in that evening. The kids had just left the table and she came in and she was clearly under the influence of drink when she came in. 8.180 She did not discuss Sr Callidas obvious intoxication with Sr Serena at the time. It was not an isolated incident, because she had witnessed Sr Callidas intoxication on other occasions. She said that the staff and children discussed Sr Callidas drinking with her and amongst themselves, and that it was a problem throughout Sr Callidas time there, No, I don't ever remember a time when it wasn't a problem. The problems continued, and both staff and children were unhappy. She described how it had an impact on the children at the time: Kids, they could get high and you know, you felt you had no control. Because everybody was kind of everybody was upset and there wasnt consistency from management down, you hadnt the consistency. The staff were young and they were going to college and doing exams ... and things like that. 8.182 Eventually, in the late 1980s, Ms Waters wrote a long and detailed letter to Sr Callida, raising a number of points regarding the care of the children, staff communications, timetables and rostering, and general management issues: I had to do something and I knew the right way to go through it first, I couldn't do anything, without sending a letter to Sr Callida, she wasn't willing to listen to me. The next thing was to send her a letter. I put an awful lot I thought about maybe there was 12 months thinking about that, you know. I put an awful lot of thought into it. 362 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
8.178
8.181
8.183
She requested a meeting to discuss the matters raised in her letter. She did not get a response to her letter, and no meeting was forthcoming. Sr Callida appeared insulted that she would make such a request, and her relationship with Sr Callida deteriorated further. She then contacted the Reverend Mother, Sr Serena, in the convent, and again raised the issues she had highlighted in her letter to Sr Callida. She told the Committee: eventually I got a meeting. I went to Sr Serena and we met, Sr Serena, Sr Callida and I, we met in the office in Group Home B. But it wasn't a successful meeting, because Sr Callida, she did a lot of crying and she was going to open the door and a few times Sr Serena said to her, "Callida, come back and sit down". It came to nothing, we got nowhere.
8.184
8.185
Sr Serena then held a staff meeting, where some of the staff members who had been complaining did not support Ms Waters and so, according to Ms Waters, Sr Serena felt she could not take the matter any further. Ms Waters said, I just couldnt stick it any longer, I couldnt cope any longer so she went directly to Sr Viola15 who was the Provincial and the person to whom Sr Serena was ultimately accountable. She raised the contents of the letter she had written to Sr Callida with Sr Viola. Sr Viola came to Group Home B a month later and interviewed all the staff who, this time, were prepared to confide in her. Her findings resulted in the dismissal of Sr Callida. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the picture painted by these witnesses is one of a complete breakdown of communication between management and staff. Management structures, timetables and proper rostering were simply not in place. This had a detrimental effect on the daily lives of the children. This disorganisation was confirmed by the evidence of Mr Lloyd,16 Resident Manager from the early 1990s. He described what confronted him when he arrived to replace Sr Callida. He found the buildings were very run down. Lots of very young children were in the Centre. Few, if any, records were kept of the children. The financial records were in disarray. The previous Resident Manager had allowed children to sleep in her bedroom. This practice was absolutely inappropriate, and he considered there were no circumstances in which a young person should ever stay in a staff members room. Children and staff told him that children had been slapped regularly and inappropriately. When he first arrived he witnessed a staff member slapping a child and immediately banned the practice. The centre was chaotic; there were staff shortages, impossible rosters and very low morale. Relatives would turn up drunk. There were no boundaries for the children and they had no structure in their daily lives. He set about dealing with the problems. Mr Lloyd brought a new perspective to childcare in Cappoquin. He was concerned at the number of children who remained in care all their lives and for whom no alternative was looked for or provided: Fostering or looking at the extended family or what would have been done. Even for long periods of time, you know, okay, children have to come into care but they don't have to stay in care. Young people and young children came into Cappoquin to care and spent their lives there until they were sixteen.
8.186
8.187
8.188
8.189
8.190
He found that Sr Callida had a close friendship with the senior social worker, who, together with Sr Callida, impeded Mr Lloyds efforts to effect change.
15 16
363
8.191
The problems were compounded by Sr Callidas reluctance to disengage from the Institution and the children in it: At first it was she would kind of meet the children coming home from school, just down the road and be speaking to them as they were coming up. She would just sit on the wall. Some of the young people would have felt uncomfortable about that. Another young person, a five year old girl, was being taken out by another nun, Sr Serena. At first what I was aware of, like, she had befriended this young person and would take her for a spin maybe once a week or once a fortnight, down ... to her family home. I subsequently found out that she was picking up Sr Callida on the way, they were meeting. So I had to put a stop to that as well, that access.
8.192
He also observed that some of the children were psychologically damaged by the manner in which the previous Resident Manager selected a number of favourites. Mr Lloyd set about introducing changes. New staff rosters were developed, pocket money for the children was introduced, and the children were allowed out for proper and constructive reasons. He set about getting the younger children fostered out to befriending families. Proper contact between children and their families was introduced and encouraged. He found that some of the children had been in care for far too long. No real attempt had been made to consider when they would leave care. He held meetings with social workers to build up a profile and history of the children, some of whom had no idea why they were in care in the first place. There was no aftercare system in place. He introduced a system, whereby a staff member was allocated to each child. They worked their normal roster, but had specific responsibility for a particular childs homework, dental visits etc. They then submitted a quarterly report for the Resident Manager on the progress of each child. He moved the office from Group Home A to Group Home B, in an effort to redress the feeling amongst the staff and children that one house was more favoured than the other. He encountered huge resistance from the senior social worker to his efforts to review children properly and to the introduction of fostering. He also encountered interference from the former Resident Manager, as outlined above. Ms Linehan and Ms Waters subsequently worked under Mr Lloyd. They described the contrast between him and Sr Lucilla. The changes brought about by the new manager resulted in proper structures being put in place; training for staff improved; regular staff meetings were held; and the children were much happier, safe and more settled. The Congregations submission that this witness had a tendency to overstate the degree of his own contribution was unfounded. Mr Lloyd was an enlightened and progressive Manager, who transformed the working conditions for staff in the group homes and created a secure environment for the children. Evidence of the Sisters of Mercy
8.193
8.194
8.195
8.196
8.197
8.198
Sr Callida was appointed as Resident Manager to Group Home A in the late 1970s, and the problems identified by the former staff members who gave evidence to the Committee were apparent almost immediately. In particular, Sr Callidas drinking became known to the Community in the convent in the year following her appointment, but nothing was done to ensure the safety and protection of the children in her care. Sr Rosetta was Resident Manager of Cappoquin for two years in the 1970s, and she appointed Sr Callida as her successor. Sr Callida was a young Sister who had worked in the group home for some years prior to her appointment. She had completed the childcare course in Kilkenny in 364 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
8.199
the mid-1970s, and was a secondary school teacher by profession. She was, in short, an ideal candidate to take up the position of Resident Manager, and appeared to have all the attributes necessary to make a success of the job. However, there were fundamental flaws to her character that caused major problems in the School: she was not a good manager/administrator, and she had very poor communication skills. These flaws were exacerbated by her relationships with two members of the Community that prevented proper monitoring of her behaviour and a long-standing problem of alcohol dependency. 8.200 The problems caused by Sr Callidas personality were obvious to any observer of the group homes, and yet the Sisters in the Community in Cappoquin failed, for over a decade, to act to protect the children in her care, who were traumatised and neglected as a result. Sr Rosetta identified Sr Callidas drinking problem as dating to an incident in which one of her residents was killed in an accident on his first day at work. He was 16 years old at the time, and his death had a severe impact on Sr Callida. Other Sisters who gave evidence to the Committee have also traced her alcohol dependency to this event that occurred in the late 1970s: It was the first of drinking that I heard was that the older boys who came back and knew him in St Michael's and stayed in the group home, I heard there was drink flowing, but I couldn't do much about it at that sensitive time. Seemingly it must have gone on from there, that was [the late 1970s], I don't know which. I think that made an awful change in her life. Maybe I didn't give her enough attention to help her over that or whatever. It was only looking back on it maybe I should have. The drink story went on from there. 8.202 Sr Rosetta confirmed that other members of the Community shared her concerns at Sr Callidas drinking. Members of the public also voiced their concern: Yes. Well, there was other people outside told us too about it. Until the early 1980s, Sr Rosetta continued as Superior in the convent in Cappoquin and did nothing to address the issue of Sr Callidas behaviour, other than, in the late 1970s, to appoint a fellow Sister, Sr Melita,17 as a companion to encourage her to interact more fully with the Community in the convent. Unfortunately, Sr Melitas ability to alert her superiors as to the seriousness of Sr Callidas mismanagement of Group Home A was compromised when they developed a close intimate relationship. Sr Melita remained in Cappoquin until the mid-1980s, when she was transferred. Sr Rosetta was then replaced by Sr Leola,18 who let matters deteriorate even further. In the mid-1980s, the six Sisters of Mercy convents in the Diocese of Waterford and Lismore came together under the overall control and direction of the Provincial Superior of the Diocese, who was Sr Viola. This Sister thereby assumed ultimate responsibility for the Sisters undertakings in Cappoquin. Sr Viola was aware of Sr Callidas drinking before her appointment in the mid-1980s. She had been approached by a member of the public in the early 1980s, who expressed concern about what was happening in Cappoquin. She suggested that the complaint should be communicated to the Superior in Cappoquin, but she herself did not follow it up. In addition, she heard reports within the Community: So I would have picked up a little bit from the leader in Cappoquin that there was some a little concern around the possibility of drink in the childcare home.
17 18
8.201
8.203
8.204 8.205
8.206
8.207
365
8.208
When asked whether she had any concerns about the impact of Sr Callidas behaviour on her ability to carry out her work, she said: Had I any concern? I suppose the answer to that is that I didn't because I had never seen it personally and I had never seen the effects of it and everything I was hearing, if you like, or seeing myself didn't support the fact that it was affecting management or the home. So, I didn't address that part of it then.
8.209
She did not take immediate action, but instead set about building trust with Sr Callida: my memory, would have been that if this is a concern then we need to build trust, to build a relationship, to come to some understanding of childcare, so that we can address the issue when we have more concrete evidence. So that was a deliberate decision that we took.
8.210
Sr Viola said that this process of building up trust involved calling over to the group home and having tea with Sr Callida on a few occasions during the year, as well as attending in-service days with her. The emphasis, however, was all on Sr Callida and, by her own admission, Sr Viola did not talk to the staff or to the children during these visits. She did not identify the chronic problems that were causing such difficulties for the children and the staff there: I certainly would have felt that the place looked okay. The children looked okay. To me, I wouldn't have had any immediate concerns at the time.
8.211
8.212
This was a missed opportunity, and it allowed Sr Callida to continue behaviour that was, by any standards, inappropriate and dangerous. Sr Viola appointed Sr Serena as Superior to the convent in Cappoquin, and gave her instructions to keep an eye on Sr Callida and report back on her behaviour. At the same time, Sr Callidas previous confidante, Sr Melita, was transferred from Cappoquin and appointed as Superior in another school. This was regarded by Sr Callida as a great loss, both to her personally and to the group home, and she and a number of the children rang Sr Viola to express their dismay at Sr Melitas departure. Sr Viola gave evidence that she had briefed Sr Serena on Sr Callidas alcohol problem when she appointed her to Cappoquin, and had asked her to monitor the situation for her. Her evidence in this regard was vague, however: I would be very surprised if I didn't. Because it was the thing that we had seriously tried to build. Liliana19 and myself had seen that as a concern and it was like please observe, please support, please build the relationship and keep in touch with us.
8.213
8.214
8.215
Sr Serena in her evidence was quite clear that she was only told to integrate Sr Callida into the Community in the convent, and was not asked to monitor her drinking. Sr Serena found the move to Cappoquin difficult. When asked by Sr Viola to go there as local leader, very, very, very reluctantly I said yes. Sr Serena did not see her remit as extending to the children in the group homes. She stated that she was the leader of the Community in Cappoquin, and also had teaching duties in the local secondary school, but did not regard the running of the homes as something she was concerned with. She visited Group Home A very regularly, as her friendship with Sr Callida grew, and even
19
8.216
8.217
366
helped out with homework occasionally, but she never saw her role as any more than that of a visitor. 8.218 At first, Sr Serena felt she was resented by the children and by Sr Callida, who were still feeling the loss of Sr Melita. By degrees, however, she built a close relationship with Sr Callida: Yeah, the friendship between us developed. Yes, it took almost a year, I think, before well, it took her a long time to warm to me, as well, because I think Sr Melita was a good friend of hers and I felt Callida probably missed her a lot. And it would have taken Callida a long time to get to know me as well. So, it didn't happen overnight, it was a process over really the first year, I think. The first year. 8.219 After that first year, she began to spend more and more time with Sr Callida: Sometimes I went down this is later on now when I got to know her quite well and we became quite friendly. We would go down and we would go out socialising, the two of us, away from Cappoquin. We would go out and have a drink or two. I would have a drink and so would she. 8.220 They would both return to the group home after a night out, and Sr Serena stayed with Sr Callida overnight. Sr Serena confirmed that the children were left under the care of a lay worker during these excursions. The two Sisters also went away for holiday weekends together: There were some weekends. With Sr Callida, yeah, there were some weekends that we went away. I remember and I remember some of the children coming with us. Two or three weekends through the time that I was there. But not all of the children. There would be three or four children with us ... Well, the place I remember is [Kerry] ... [The hotel] had special at least I was told they had special bargains, or whatever. So it was generally, as far as I remember it was [a] hotel in [Kerry], yeah. There were good weekends I thought. I thought they were good weekends. 8.223 Sr Serena conceded that it was unusual for a Sister in a Community to go away for the weekend with another Sister, Well, you know, I know it wasn't right. It wasn't. As her relationship with Sr Callida developed, she became more compromised: As I got to know Sr Callida a bit better it began to interfere with my job as local leader. Because I felt within myself a great discomfort that I was not doing what I should have done. I felt sometimes as time went on, that I was living a lie and that made me extremely unhappy within myself. That is one of the huge difficulties, looking back on my time in Cappoquin, that is one of my great sorrows, that is why I asked the Community, especially on one occasion, when Cappoquin was closing down; I asked for their forgiveness, I felt I let them down. In fact, I felt I let everyone down, including Sr Callida and Viola. 8.225 Her ability to do her job was affected: Well, I suppose, I felt I compromised myself and therefore I didn't have the freedom, maybe, to let me think about that now. I sort of lost my independence and my right to be independent and, therefore, I really I felt I had no voice anymore and no authority over anything really, including the community. The community were extremely kind and very I don't know what they understood, I never asked them, but they were extremely accepting and forgiving, I suppose, and kind. But I was deeply unhappy within myself for a long time CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 367
8.221
8.222
8.224
towards the end. For a long time. And I suppose, yeah, I was. That has lived with me ever since. 8.226 When asked what the sleeping arrangements were for the children that accompanied them on these weekends, she said that they all shared a family room: Well there were small double beds, so there would have been if there were three or four of them they would have been two by two, two by two in the beds and Sr Callida and I would have shared the main bed. So we would have all been in the same room. 8.227 Sr Serena was remorseful for letting down her Community and Sr Viola and Sr Callida. She was asked whether she felt she had let the children down, I suppose I didn't I wouldn't have seen it like that. She admitted that her relationship with Sr Callida prevented her from seeing how bad things were in Group Home A, and it also lost her the trust of the staff there: I thought initially that I got on well with the staff, because we used to chat and talk around the table and obviously they lost any confidence they knew I didn't have a role there but at the same time they lost any confidence I think or any trust they had in me, which was absolutely understandable. That was quite significant because when we did have a meeting eventually it really went nowhere because they had lost trust in me. And I accept that. 8.229 Throughout the first three years of her time in Cappoquin, Sr Serena was in almost daily contact with her immediate Superior, Sr Viola, who taught in the same school: That's another place where I reneged my responsibility because I was torn between loyalty to Viola and the Congregation and loyalty to Callida. So because I was carrying so much self-blame and shame and guilt and all sorts of things around my role or myself, I tended to shy away from talking about things like that to Viola. So that's why I said a minute ago that I failed Viola as well. 8.230 The result of this conflict of loyalties was that, when Ms Waters, the House Mother of Group Home B, came to her with serious complaints about Sr Callida in the late 1980s, she did not tell Sr Viola but tried to deal with the matter herself. She failed dismally, and Ms Waters went over her head to Sr Viola, who came and interviewed staff and removed Sr Callida from her position as Resident Manager. Sr Callidas removal came as a shock to Sr Serena, who claimed that she had no idea that things had deteriorated as badly as they had by the early 1990s. However, she knew of the problems that caused so much distress to the staff. She was aware that some ex-pupils regularly stayed overnight in Group Home A, and she was also aware that these men were sometimes drunk and would be dangerous around young children. She was also aware that Sr Callida absented herself from the home for long periods and that she regularly drank, sometimes in the company of Sr Serena. What was clear from Sr Serenas evidence was that she never considered the safety or welfare of the children in Group Home A. She professed herself as shocked at the evidence of the care workers who described conditions as dirty and neglectful. In her own evidence, she said that she considered the children were spoiled: If I had seen anything, if ever I had seen anything in relation to the children in Cappoquin that worried me or upset me, because I was a teacher and because I had care for children, I would have been very I would have done something about it. But I didn't see anything. I didn't see anything that really concerned me in relation to the staff treating the children, or anyone treating the children badly. 368 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
8.228
8.231
8.232
Sr Serena conceded that she did not really know what her responsibilities were in Cappoquin: I see what you are saying, I suppose really now that we are talking this is probably the first time ever that I have had to sit down and really think about my role, because it has been put to me the way you have been. I suppose it was all laissez faire. It was all a bit nebulous, it was, because it only now really, as you ask those questions now, I know what you are saying, I have to say I wouldn't have seen that connection. It was all a bit nebulous, yes it was, everything was a bit nebulous, really.
8.233
She said that, although she was seriously compromised in the carrying out of her duties in Cappoquin, none of the other 10 Sisters who were resident there ever said anything to her or to Sr Viola: They probably noticed that I was spending more time down there than I should have. I tried I think I would say I tried not to neglect my duties above. I loved them dearly and I spent a lot of time with them and I tried to do my work there as well as I could.
8.234
Sr Callidas removal as Resident Manager did not end the problems caused by her time in charge there. She bitterly resented her removal and defended her record in Group Home A vehemently. She continued living in the convent for two years after her removal, and interfered with the committee that had been put in place by Sr Viola to run the homes pending the appointment of a new Resident Manager. This interference continued intermittently until she eventually left the Congregation in the mid-1990s. Sr Clarice was a retired teacher in the primary school who had a fair degree of contact with the children in the group homes. She recalled that, in the early 1990s, Sr Viola asked her to help out the staff in the group homes and to be there to help them. She was already aware that the staff were having difficulties with Sr Callida at the time and, although she says she did not know the specifics, I think they were getting contradictory messages about the children who were in the home and they were stressed. Sr Callida persisted in making contact with some of the children, by meeting them outside the home. She was particularly obstructive when attempts were made to unite one girl with her mother. This was a child with whom Sr Callida had had a close bond, which was a matter of concern to the management committee. Sr Callidas evidence
8.235
8.236
8.237
Sr Callida accepted that there were times when she drank a lot, but did not agree with the witnesses who testified as to the extent of her drinking: I dont accept whats the word I am looking for? The bigness of it. She denied that her drinking was problematic: There was never a time when I was out of order or didnt know my place or was falling all over the place. I dispute that. Sr Callida was asked to comment on the appropriateness of conducting intimate relationships with two of the Sisters in the presence of the children. She did not accept that she had a relationship with one of the Sisters and stated: The one I acknowledge had nothing to do with the house. In my room there were two beds and we had a bed each and that was that. But there was an occasion or two outside of the home when it wasnt appropriate.
8.238
8.239
8.240
She denied that she had favourites amongst the children, or that she favoured Group Home A over Group Home B. She believed that she had a good relationship with staff members, apart from Ms Waters who she described as kind of aloof. She did not accept the evidence of Ms CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 369
Waters that staff were frustrated, and that staff and children were unhappy. She believed at the time that Ms Waters was making these allegations and complaints out of spite. 8.241 Although she accepted that some people stayed overnight in the homes from time to time, I dont accept that they were allowed roam around. She said that the only people who stayed over were past pupils and her own brother. She did not accept evidence from the staff members that one past pupil in particular was a regular visitor and was often drunk: No, I never saw Mr Owens drunk. But ... his co-ordination was so poor that he fumbled and stumbled. ... Mr Owens stayed twice. 8.242 She did not accept the belief, held by members of staff and some members of the Community, that she had a domineering and intimidating management style and that people feared her, nor did she accept the evidence that, following her removal, she was insubordinate and interfered with the new management in the group homes. Even at this remove, Sr Callida was unable to explain to the Committee what went wrong in Cappoquin during her tenure: I dont know what went wrong. I just dont know ... Because we had great times and good times and happy times. It was clear from her evidence to the Investigation Committee that Sr Callida did not have any real insight into how she was perceived by other people. She believed she was a good manager, that the children and staff were happy, and that staff problems stemmed from the personality of one member of staff who was spiteful towards her. One of the Sisters who gave evidence gave a description of Sr Callidas personality as one of great power that seemed to work towards negating the power of others. She was intimidating and forceful. This evidence was challenged, and it was suggested that the Congregation was taking a one-sided view of her relationships with people. There was, however, evidence from staff members as to the difficulties they had in communicating with her. She had a divisive style of management and was not well disposed to any criticism or suggestions. Following her removal in the early 1990s, Sr Callida was told to stay away from the group home and children, in order to avoid confusion for the children. The Congregation had great difficulty in getting Sr Callida to comply with its wishes. Initially, she continued to come to work every day, and later she tended to stay around the grounds of Cappoquin, waiting for the children on their way to and from school. Sr Callida remained defiant, and it took almost a year to resolve these problems. The role of the Departments of Education and Health 8.247 The children were let down by poor supervision and monitoring from the Departments of Education and Health. Mr Granville, the Inspector, identified staff problems in 1981. He thought that the Resident Manager was young and inexperienced. Right up to his last report, he continued to have concerns about staff rostering and the erosion of continuity with the children due to staff changes. Mr Granville had no responsibility for the Health Board children who were coming and going in the home, with little or no contact or support from social workers. Responsibility for Cappoquin was transferred from the Department of Education to the Department of Health from 1st January 1984, but until 1991 inspections were not carried out because of lack of staff. The South Eastern Health Board was aware of rumours, in the mid-1980s, that the Resident Manager was absenting herself from the Centre and was drinking heavily. There was no formal inspection system. An official paid a surprise visit to the Centre, when he found the Resident 370 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
8.243
8.244
8.245
8.246
8.248
8.249
Manager present. He was satisfied with what he saw and did not take any action. He did not speak to any of the children or to the staff or to the nuns in the Community. The Resident Manager was removed in the early 1990s for the very concerns that were being spoken about. What the Congregation says 8.250 In its Submission to the Investigation Committee, the Congregation pointed out that suspicions of child abuse did not form any part of the reason for the dismissal of the Resident Manager by the Superior in the early 1990s. It submitted that all the evidence and contemporaneous documents were consistent with the reason for her dismissal being her inappropriate drinking and major staff communication problems, with the obvious knock-on effect these had for the children in the home. The Congregation submits that discreet steps were taken in response to concerns expressed by members of the Community and by people outside. One sister was asked to be a companion to Sr Callida in the hope that she would be a good influence because she did not drink. However, that did not happen. Instead, as the Congregation submission put it, the two nuns: developed a relationship with each other. This may have had an impact on [Sr Melitas] capacity to observe [Sr Callidas] behaviour in an objective manner. It was one of several unusual aspects to the Cappoquin story involving [Sr Callida] as to the manner in which (informal) human arrangements for monitoring her ran into the sand. In the event, [Sr Melita] did not transmit any concerns about [Sr Callida] to anyone in leadership. The submission refers to another nun, Sr Serena, who was specifically asked to report to the diocesan leadership about whether or not there was any substance to the rumours about Sr Callidas drinking. The Diocesan Leader was reassured that there was not but the submission admits that the system for monitoring Sr Callida failed for unusual and unexpected reasons. This unusual matter was the development of a relationship between [Sr Callida] and [Sr Serena], which compromised [Sr Serena] and prevented the reporting system devised by [Sr Viola] from working effectively. The result was that no information of a drink problem or of any other problems reached the ears of the leadership from internal congregation sources. 8.252 There was a conflict of evidence between Sr Viola, the senior diocesan nun, and Sr Serena, the local head, as to the latters role in monitoring Sr Lucilla. Sr Serena testified that the only brief she had was to befriend Sr Callida and encourage her to become closer to the Community. She denied that she was ever asked to report specifically to the Diocesan Leadership about whether or not there was any substance to the rumours about the drinking. The Congregation has submitted that there was a system for monitoring Sr Callida but, for unusual and unexpected reasons, the system failed. The problems that faced Mr Lloyd, when he arrived in Cappoquin in the early 1990s, clearly did not arise overnight. The problems were long standing and had deteriorated steadily over the years. It was well known amongst staff and members of the Congregation that the Resident Manager was drinking heavily. A number of Sisters believed that the drinking began after the death of a pupil in the late 1970s. She had been spoken to a number of times about the matter. The Resident Manager was in denial and, when one particular lay staff member complained to her about alcohol consumption on the premises, she was dismissed. Certainly, by the mid-1980s the leaders of the Community had expressed concern to the Superior of the convent about the Resident Managers drinking, but it took the resignation of two young lay staff members in the early 1990s to force them to address the issue properly. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 371
8.251
8.253
The mid-1990s 8.254 The Superior General of the Sisters of Mercy, kept a detailed diary of the events that unfolded over this period and recorded allegations, complaints and concerns about Sr Callida. In the early 1990s, Sr Callida told the Superior General that she had obtained a position with the Health Board in a project involving the care of a young man. The Superior General informed the Health Board of her concern about Sr Callidas suitability for the post because of the complaints that had come to her notice, including information from Mr Lloyd. In the course of the resulting Health Board investigation, it emerged that one of the Boards own senior social workers had given Sr Callida a glowing reference, even though he knew that she had been dismissed from her job in Cappoquin. The Health Board did not look beyond the social workers reference and offered Sr Callida the job. This happened, despite the fact that the Chief Executive Officer of the Health Board had been informed in the early 1990s of Sr Callidas dismissal, and she herself had been in communication with the Health Board disputing her removal. The social worker should not have given the reference and was seriously at fault in doing so. The Health Board should have been able, from its records, to notice the discrepancy between the favourable reference and the fact that the candidate had been dismissed from her previous post. Sr Callida left the Congregation in the mid 1990s. Shortly after that, the Superior General was asked for a reference for the former Sr Callida, and she recorded her response in her diary: Phone call from XXX in Dublin looking for a reference for [Callida]. Asked the nature of work laundry for hospitals. Told her she had been a member of the congregation. She asked what was my connection with her diocesan superior. I said that I believed she was a hard worker when in hospital for the elderly. She said I seemed hesitant. Told her I did not really know [Callida]. 8.258 In the late 1990s, the matron of another institution contacted the Sisters of Mercy to complain at the failure of the Congregation to inform her fully of Callidas background. A senior member of the Congregation testified that the overall policy with regard to references was that of being honest and upright. Conclusions 8.259
8.255
8.256
8.257
Sr Callida was an incompetent manager who exhibited a lack of basic management skills including rostering, proper record keeping, communicating with staff and children, consistency and avoiding favouritism. Each of these deficiencies would have represented a serious flaw in a Resident Manager but, taken together, they constituted a disastrous mixture. She consumed alcohol in front of the children to excess and she was drunk and incapable on occasion. Her behaviour was unpredictable and irrational; she bullied the staff and occasionally beat the children. Sr Callida exposed children to additional risk by going away unannounced leaving the children in the charge of junior staff who had no way of contacting her and also by permitting male outsiders to have access to the home and to stay overnight even when she was not there. It was wrong for the Resident Manager to have children sleeping in her bedroom and for her and the Sister with whom she was conducting a relationship to take children away for weekends to hotels to stay in family rooms. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
372
Congregation witnesses admitted to some knowledge of Sr Callidas behaviour, but did not feel they could do anything about it, and the situation drifted on over 12 years until it developed into a crisis. There was no proper supervision of the Manager. The Community did not have the interests of the children as their priority. Any action taken by the Congregation focussed exclusively on the Resident Manager. The children were not considered. The Health Board neglected its supervisory function in respect of children for whom it was responsible. One of its senior Health Board officials permitted his friendship with the Resident Manager, to cloud his judgment, and he failed to recognise gross failures of management as a result. No proper reviews were carried out by the Boards social workers. The children in Cappoquin were let down and endangered by each of the institutions and agencies in whose care they were placed, by the persons in positions of authority over them, and by persons in supervisory roles. They were fortunate to have care workers who were more dedicated to their tasks and more committed to the interest of the children than their superiors.
Physical abuse
Position of the Sisters of Mercy
8.260 In their Submission to the Investigation Committee, the Sisters of Mercy stated that the Committee was not in a position to reach firm conclusions on allegations of physical abuse as distinct from the reasonable use of corporal punishment where the events alleged arose over 35 years ago. They accepted that corporal punishment was used in Cappoquin and regret its use and its impact on the children. From the total of nine ex-residents who appeared before the Committee, the majority described one or more incidents of physical punishment. A witness, who was admitted to Cappoquin as a baby in the early 1950s, described how a particularly severe beating by one of the Sisters destroyed his trust in the adults who were looking after him. He was in bed and was naked because he had been treated with ointment. One of the lay staff gave him a painting set, which he used to colour two religious statues in the room. He recalled a nun (Sr Adriana he thought) coming into the room and: ... she kind of lost reasoning and, I suppose, from her point of view I was desecrating something very religious but from my point of view I was just painting, you know. She just kept hitting and hitting and wouldn't stop. So, I ran for the door ... I was running in the dark, I just wanted to get away, I was just running in panic. She just kept hitting, and coming after me down the stairs ... and I kept banging on the door and banging and banging until somebody actually came out and she just kept hitting and hitting until somebody came out and stopped her ... Up to then I would have to say while I got a clout every now and again for not doing something or you got a slap, but it wasn't with viciousness, not in the same way with viciousness, this was just temper let loose. I don't know if that person, to me, even if they said sorry, I wouldn't have understood it, I really wouldn't have. 8.263 The Sister beat him with an ordinary, classroom cane, but it was much worse than punishment in school: CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 373
8.261
8.262
It was a cane. About two or three feet long, made of bamboo, with a kind of bend on it like that (indicating) ... they used to use them in the classroom for striking the boards or tables or hitting somebody. But when you have a naked child and you stand back at two or three feet and let fly as an adult the cane doesn't stop when it hits the flesh, it cuts, you know. 8.264 Although this witness was only six or seven when this incident occurred, he was able to distinguish this beating from the ordinary corporal punishment he received from time to time in the School. He had been slapped with the cane before, although it had not been a common occurrence. The beating had a lasting effect: After that I would say that the trust had gone out, the trust had gone out of it. You never, ever would allow people get that close to you and you were always looking for a way out. If somebody raised their voice or anything you would instantly go into fear because I didn't understand, I didn't understand the power behind it. I am trying to explain that as a child when somebody does that to you it is the sheer power and the frightedness of it that kind of haunts you, it comes back to you and when any other adult raises their voice the next you expect is the assault coming behind it ... 8.265 His recollection of Cappoquin was that younger nuns could not challenge older nuns, even if they saw something wrong: It gave that person then the power ... There is no system, nobody said stop if an older person done something. That's the way it was, they seemed to rule it, you know. 8.266 He described the nun who beat him as being very domineering, and said that the person who stopped the beating had not challenged her for what she was doing. He said another nun who was there, Sr Mariella,20 was a very standoffish person, very authoritarian ... She would be more than likely to hit you twice as fast as anybody else. Although the younger nuns or novices were able to relate to the children, the older members of the staff were more inclined to punish, [They] believed in punishment for the sake of punishment and that if we punish you enough as a child it will make you a better person, you know. He went to Artane when he was 10 years old, and notwithstanding his experiences in Cappoquin still believed that the Sisters there did their best and, in contrast with Artane, genuinely tried to care for the children. Another ex-resident who was in Cappoquin in the 1970s described the nuns there as unreal: As far as abuse was concerned. They had the bamboo sticks as long as the handle of a brush ... They would actually beat you wherever they would want to beat you. There is no such thing as put out your hands, they would hit you on the legs, they would hit you on the back. I actually seen one incident where there was actually a chap poked in the eye with it and they had the cheek to turn around and go down to the chapel after it. What they went to the chapel for, I don't know. 8.271 He named two nuns, Sr Carina and Sr Lorenza,21 who he said were particularly severe. In the case of Sr Lorenza, he said that, although she could be nice:
20 21
8.267
8.268
8.269
8.270
This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym. Sr Lorenza later worked in St. Josephs Industrial School, Kilkenny. See St Josephs Industrial School, Kilkenny chapter.
374
... she could get very contrary. She could be a nice nun. I suppose she could be an understanding nun, we'll say. But yet if she lost the cool she lost the cool, she wouldn't spare you any more than Sr Carina would spare you. 8.272 A witness, who was admitted to Cappoquin at four years of age in the late 1950s, described a severe beating he received from the Resident Manager.22 He had been called into her office and handed a letter sent to him by his mother. Sr Carina asked him to read it, but he could not read: I remember then I got a beating over that. I remember she beat me so much I ended up down at the wall, at the end of the wall, she had beat me that much. Then at the end of it all she just got the letter and she said "seen as you can't read the letter it is no good to you" and she tore it up. 8.273 He recalled another nun, Sr Mariella, giving him a severe beating because he did not hear a bell ringing. He had just come out of hospital after an operation on his ears and had bandages on, which affected his hearing: ... but I couldn't hear nothing and all I could see was everybody running. So, I didn't run. Next thing Sr Mariella started belting me with the cane, all over and she hit me in the ear and I ended up back in there again, back in the hospital. 8.274 The witness remembered one nun in Cappoquin with particular fondness: The reason I have always loved Sr Adriana is one particular incident involving again Sr Carina, the time when we went to the toilet, you went to the toilet at certain times, right ... So you were lined up and you were told when to go into the toilet, when it was your turn, in you go, the nun would tell you. It came to me anyway and I didn't want to go, I didn't want to, you know what I mean. So with that I was brought back into the office. I must have been about eight, nine at the time, eight at the time. I was brought back into the office. Again I got beaten. I was stripped and put on the, what do you call it, the office desk, she used have a big desk she used have all her things on it. I got put on that, and I was beaten. But when I woke up on that I didn't wake up on the desk, I woke up in the bed. The first thing I see when I woke up was Sr Adriana. She had one hand on my forehead and she was holding her beads with the other hand. That's a picture I never forgot and I never will. Because that brought home to me, in later years as I got older, the difference. That there was good and bad. And that's why I have never blamed the nuns or anyone else for what happened to me. I have never even blamed the Christian Brothers, because that particular incident always stayed in my mind. 8.275 Another complainant spoke about a particular incident with Sr Carina: I remember Sr Carina bringing me in between down on the nun's side of the School, like, and when I looked at this woman I could see fire in her eyes, like, and I knew what I was expecting from her and I couldn't prevent it and she caught me and she put me over her knee and she literally whipped the backside off me with her whole hand. She said to me, "I am going to leather you ... until I put blisters on your backside", and she meant it what she said, like. I remember after that I couldn't sit down. I looked at her hand and her hand was sore red from swinging it. The ring that she was wearing you could see the white of the band, that will just tell you how red her hand was from lashing me, like. She was a good woman herself with the cane, like, you know ... Once or twice that happened to me.
22
Mother Carina.
375
Bed-wetting
8.276 Given the ages of the children in Cappoquin, it was inevitable that bed-wetting was a major problem. The Sisters of Mercy accepted that there may have been occasions when children were punished and consequently humiliated for bedwetting, and, recognising the deep hurt and trauma this must have caused to the children, apologise sincerely for this. One complainant said fear was the cause of bed-wetting, as far as he was concerned: Normally if I destroyed the bed it was because of the person present, I would be afraid to go to the toilet, and if I didn't go to the toilet and I got to bed I would be afraid afterwards that I would be chastised. 8.278 He said that the consequence of wetting the bed depended on who was on duty. Some of the staff just cleaned it up, others would slap the child. Another complainant, who had a problem with wetting the bed, said that the nuns would hit children for this: The boys that wet the bed, they'd have to take off the sheet, their face could be dipped in it first, their face could be shoved down into it and they would get a few clouts and clatters. 8.280 The punishment appeared to get more severe when one lay person, Ms Lambert,23 was employed to supervise the dormitories. A witness recalled the fear he felt at night, knowing that he would be beaten by this staff member the next day if he wet himself: ... I had a habit of wetting the bed and she Ms Lambert would come in in the morning and ask anyone that wet the bed to stay in your bed, which I did stay in the bed ... If you went back to your bed, you had to go back into it and sit there and wait for your turn ... She came around, hit all the other young kids, you are sitting there and you are waiting and you are watching her, waiting for my turn, to lie over the bed and a big cane before you went to school, before you had breakfast ... That went on all the time I wet the bed and I wet the bed for a long time, for years. That was my torture for that. Sometimes I used to stay awake, try and stay awake, I couldn't, I was young. Try to keep my friend awake beside me. I used to have nightmares ... Yeah, I know that's what I was frightened of, going to sleep. If you wet it a second time you get more, you know what I mean. It might be five of the best and then ten of the best. 8.282 Another witness had a similar experience of this staff member: Ms Lambert would come up in the mornings and if we wet our bed we had to lie in our own bed. Often the case I ended up lying in my own urine and excretion at times and she would hit us over the legs, the buttocks and on the back. She was quite cruel, Ms Lambert ... It went on for a long period of time ... there was a little red dimmer light with Jesus on it in the cross, in the bottom, and I remember I used to look up at it and I used to say to God, "Please, do not let me wet the bed tonight, do not let me excrete." I used to be awake.
8.277
8.279
8.281
Lay staff
8.283 Some witnesses described the lay staff as being more abusive than the Sisters. One witness recalled being lined up after returning from a family holiday and being beaten by the staff member identified in the bed-wetting section above, Ms Lambert:
23
376
I remember when we came back from holiday with my mother and father and that, and we were all lined up and she just started hammering us with the stick, she did ... She done it on many occasions, you know. 8.284 Another witness who was there in the 1940s and 1950s recalled that the day-to-day running of the Institution was left to lay staff and that the Sisters had more of a supervisory role. He had no problems with any of the nuns, but he said the lay workers could be cruel. He found bath-time particularly difficult: ... they would hit me and hit my hands if I am holding the bath on the side, you know when you are very small and you are trying to hold the bath and I was fearfully afraid of water, and they would hit your hands away and catch your head like that and push you down underneath and try to get the soap off you. Sometimes they would be laughing while they are doing this and they would take a great bit of fun in doing ducking you under the water and making you feel like you are going to drown. 8.285 Although this witness believed that the Sisters in charge knew that the lay staff were cruel to the children but did not interfere, he still associated whatever happy memories he had of Cappoquin with the Sisters. Another lay member of staff was mentioned by one complainant, who described her using the handle of a brush to beat him: ... she swung at me, I ducked from her and got under the table, but she used the handle of a brush and beat me wherever she could hit me. 8.287 Although Sr Isabella treated him in the infirmary for the injuries he had received from this beating, she would not believe that they had been inflicted by a staff member. Physical punishment in Cappoquin continued after the Industrial School had been closed and the group homes were established. One care worker in Group Home A described seeing a child with marks on her legs as a result of a beating by Sr Callida. Mr Lloyd, who succeeded Sr Callida as Resident Manager, reported that children had told him of beatings and punishments that were completely inappropriate and severe. Sr Callida was asked whether she had ever beaten any of the children, and she said that there were three episodes that stood out in her mind. She was Resident Manager during the 1980s, when there was almost universal opposition to physical punishment of children.
8.286
8.288
8.289
8.290
Peer abuse
8.291 One complainant described an incident that occurred in the evening when all the boys were in one room watching television. He alleged that he was being sexually abused by two older boys, and this aspect of the story is told below. These older boys had been transferred from Artane and they were put in charge of all the boys in the evening, when the lay staff and the nuns were off duty. They had canes and used them on the boys: my brother was being belted with this bamboo stick by the other man ... he was crying and I heard my brother crying and I was sitting down looking at the television ... I just turned around and as he had it over his shoulder like that I caught it and I said to him, "if you don't stop now I am going tell what you are doing to me." 8.292 8.293 The sexual abuse stopped after that incident. He said that boys could receive beatings from these older boys for minor things: CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 377
He could have told him pick up that piece of paper on the ground there and we would keep looking at the television and that would rise him, so he would just go to him and pull him out of the chair. 8.294 8.295 He said the beatings could be Across the legs, across the backside and the hands. A number of older boys exercised this kind of unsupervised authority over the children during the evening. They instilled fear into the younger boys by beating them with canes. He thought that the management of the School must have known about this: They must have known it. Yeah, they must have known. I believe they did know it ... Them boys didn't take it upon themselves to say, "come on ... we will get the sticks and we'll look after these boys." They obviously got authority from someone to do it and they didn't get it from us. 8.297 The Sisters have submitted that, as only one witness gave evidence that older boys were given power over the younger boys and none of the staff or Sisters involved at the time are in a position to give evidence to the contrary, the evidence is so tenuous that no conclusions adverse to the Sisters could reasonably be supported. However, the abuser in this case gave a statement to the Garda, admitting the sexual abuse and acknowledging that he was left in charge of the younger boys in the evening.
8.296
Positive evidence
8.298 Although all of the complainants from Cappoquin described physical punishment or abuse, many recalled particular nuns who were good or kind to them. One nun who came in for special praise was Sr Isabella. When asked what it was about Sr Isabella that singled her out, one witness said: ... What was it that made Sr [Isabella] the best of them? I never actually seen her being violent with anyone. I never seen her being violent with myself. To me, she was a good caring kind of a woman. But done her job. If someone needed chastising if someone needed chastising she would shout, point her finger. I never actually seen her hitting anyone, or she never hit me. 8.300 Another witness said of Sr Isabella: ... there is one nun that I still write to ... Sr Isabella, who was outstanding, and I would have to say that of all the nuns there, she was the one that she ran the infirmary, I think, if my memory serves me right. But she would have been one that probably exhibited what should have been rather than what was ... 8.301 Another complainant, who made allegations against a man he was fostered out to from Cappoquin, went even further: You know, if you wanted to find good people Sr Isabella, Sr Carina and Sr Serafina24 were three walking saints. It is just the staff I didn't like.
8.299
Conclusions
8.302 1. The incidents of physical punishment described by complainants went beyond what was permitted. The children were very young, and such severe punishment was uncalled for.
24
378
2. Caning very young children was unnecessary and abusive by the standards of the time. 3. Untrained lay staff were unsupervised and given too much control over the children, and this resulted in cruelty. 4. Allowing older boys to discipline smaller children using corporal punishment was reckless and dangerous.
Sexual abuse
Sexual abuse by Mr Restin25 in Cappoquin and Passage West
8.303 Mr Restin was a childcare worker in Cappoquin in the late 1970s. He had previously been employed by the Sisters of Mercy in another of their industrial schools in Passage West, County Cork, during the mid-1970s. In the mid-1990s, Mr Restin was arrested in England and charged with three offences of indecent assault on a boy under 16 and with possession of indecent photographs of children. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, of which he served nine months. Following his prison sentence, he spent a period of four months in a psychiatric hospital because of depression and then lived in a probation hostel for a further six months. He returned to Dublin in the late 1990s. An ex-resident of Cappoquin disclosed to his psychiatrist that he had been sexually and physically abused by a number of named individuals, including Mr Restin, whilst in the Institution. He was advised to report the abuse and, in 2000, he made a full statement to the Garda. Mr Restin was interviewed by the Garda the following year, and admitted sexually abusing boys in Passage West and Cappoquin. Two years later, he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment: six years for possession of pornographic material, and two sentences of two years each for indecently assaulting a boy in Cappoquin and a boy in Passage West. Mr Restin told the Committee that he did not know the identity of the two boys in respect of whom he had pleaded guilty: I am doing two years for a victim in Passage West and I am doing two years for a victim in Cappoquin and I do not know who either of those victims are, at this point ... I pleaded guilty ... I am convinced that whoever they are I ... did abuse them or I wouldn't have said I did. 8.308 Three witnesses gave evidence that Mr Restin sexually abused them in the Industrial School in Cappoquin, and a further two witnesses described being sexually and physically abused by him in Passage West. Mr Restin was placed with the nuns in Cappoquin at three months of age, where he remained until he was nine and a half years old. He was then transferred to St Patricks Industrial School, Upton and was discharged on the day before his sixteenth birthday. Mr Restin gave evidence that he was subjected to serious sexual abuse whilst in Upton by a Priest and by a Brother. During his time as a child in Cappoquin and Upton, he was aware of sexual activity among other boys and he also became involved. He said it was not widespread but it went on.
25
8.304
8.305
8.306
8.307
8.309
8.310
8.311
379
8.312
He became a nurse because he realised he had a problem forming relationships with adults, and thought he might be able to resolve these difficulties through his nursing vocation. After four years training, he qualified as a nurse and, on one occasion, was sent on special duty to attend a patient who needed treatment in hospital in Cork. At that time, a young resident of Passage West Industrial School was in the hospital where he spent approximately one month. Mr Restin befriended the boy and got to meet the Resident Manager of Passage West, Sr Vita,26 who regularly visited the hospital. When the boy left hospital and returned to Passage West, Mr Restin began to visit Passage West at weekends, when he would spend time there, play ball with the children and occasionally have a meal with the nuns in their dining room. He said that the Resident Manager was aware of his medical training and that she also knew he was an ex-Cappoquin resident. After some months, the Sisters in Passage West offered him a job, at first mainly as a driver. He said the job was better paid than nursing, the hours were more flexible and he was provided with accommodation. He unsuccessfully applied for leave of absence from his nursing job, so continued to be employed as a nurse whilst also working in Passage West. Mr Restin agreed with the suggestion that the moves to Passage West and subsequently to Cappoquin might have been deliberate, to gain access to young boys. He admitted that he sexually abused a number of boys he recalled around five in Passage West, but he denied ever forcing any boys to engage in oral sex, as had been alleged. He described how he had a routine, and that oral sex was not part of it. He also denied that he had ever raped boys, and he told the Committee the reason: I suppose the fact that I was raped myself, it was something that I found extremely offensive and it is something I have never done.
8.313
8.314
8.315
8.316
8.317
Mr Restin admitted abusing one of the complainants who gave evidence about abuse in Passage West. The complainant was admitted to Passage West in the early 1970s. When his mother died in the late 1960s, he became involved in petty crime and he was committed by the District Court to Passage West until he was aged 16. Soon after he arrived in Passage West, he came across Mr Restin. Initially, he thought he was friendly. The sexual abuse started soon after meeting him and continued until Mr Restin left the Institution. He was forced to engage in mutual masturbation and, after his first experience, he initially tried to avoid contact with Mr Restin by trying to keep a low profile and staying out of his way. This did not work and the abuse continued on a regular basis in a variety of locations in the Institution. He always felt under threat of a beating or punishment if he did not co-operate with Mr Restin. He then began absconding from Passage West. On one occasion, one of the nuns and Mr Restin came to the Garda Station to bring him back to the School and, when they got back, they gave him a severe beating with a stick. Another time, when he was on a visit home, his father noticed marks on his body from a beating. He told his father that Mr Restin had beaten him, and his father planned to confront Mr Restin when he called to collect him after the weekend to bring him back to Passage West. Some form of altercation took place, and it required the intervention of the Resident Manager and her assistant, before his father agreed to allow him to return to the School. He did not tell his family about the sexual abuse at the time.
26
8.318
8.319
380
8.320
Some time later, he realised that Mr Restin was abusing others. He began to notice signs as boys emerged eating sweets, having spent some time with Mr Restin. He and two other boys went to the Resident Manager, Sr Vita, in her room and told her what Mr Restin was doing. She seemed sympathetic and asked them to name the boys who were being abused. He named about 12 to 15 boys, and the other boys named a few. He was called to her room later that evening, where the boys he had named were lined up. The Manager asked them in turn if Mr Restin was doing stuff to them, and all the boys except for one denied it. The witness and the other boy who confirmed the abuse were taken to the hall and given beatings, which were so severe that the other boy was injured and required stitches. The witness absconded a few days later with two other boys. He thought that he was not caught for about two and half weeks and did not recall being punished, which he felt was because the Resident Manager was well aware of why he ran away. Mr Restin did not bother him after that, and he could not remember when Mr Restin left Passage West. Mr Restin had to engage in protracted correspondence with his employers as he sought leave from the hospital where he worked to attend the childcare course in Kilkenny. This leave was finally granted in the early 1970s, but he did not attend the course either in the year the leave was granted or the following year. The records show that in one particular academic year 19 persons attended the Kilkenny childcare course instead of the usual 20, and Mr Restin was not one of them. It appears that his application was blocked as a result of an unfavourable response given by Sr Vita to a query made by a Department of Education official in reference to Mr Restins suitability for the post. Complainant evidence from Passage West
8.321
8.322
8.323
Another complainant who gave evidence recalled the arrival of Mr Restin. His memory was that one of the pupils was not well and went to hospital. On his return, Mr Restin was with him. He understood he was a nurse and was there to attend to medical issues. He fell off a bicycle and hurt his testicles and sustained a number of bruises in that area. He went to see Mr Restin who brought him into his cubicle off the dormitory. He applied cream to the affected area. Mr Restin then undressed and told the complainant to masturbate him, which he did. Mr Restin then gave him sweets and told him to keep quiet. The witness said that he had to masturbate Mr Restin in this way on several occasions. He said that Mr Restin raped him on three occasions. The first time, it happened in a field to which Mr Restin had driven him. The second was in Mr Restins cubicle in the dormitory, and the third in an old disused train carriage in the school grounds. He said Mr Restin punched and beat him on the back during one rape. After the last occasion, he did everything in his power to avoid Mr Restin, by staying close to the other boys and his brothers. He said he then built up courage to go to the head nun in the convent, which was separate from the School. He said he told her at the front entrance to the convent that Mr Restin was sexually abusing him. She told him to go back to the School and she would speak to somebody about it. Some time later, Sr Vita called him and accused him of spreading wicked lies and gave him a severe beating. Soon after this, Mr Restin left. Sr Vita worked in Mount St Josephs Industrial School in Passage West from the early 1940s to the early 1980s, and was Resident Manager from the early 1970s until she left. She was a qualified nurse. She is now deceased. Her evidence was taken on commission at a nursing home in Cork. Sr Vitas recollection was that the first complainant above told her about Mr Restin, who had threatened to do something to him and to a number of younger boys. She said that she asked him whether Mr Restin had threatened to beat him, to which he replied that he had not. She did not pursue the matter further in my innocence and ignorance I suppose and said she did not know what the boy could have meant, although she did believe that he had been threatened by CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 381
8.324
8.325
Mr Restin. She sent for Mr Restin, but he had left the Institution by then. She never saw him again. She said that she phoned Cappoquin looking for him but he was not there. In a statement made to the Garda she said: After [the complainant] had told me about [Mr Restin] I tried to contact him in Cappoquin. I wanted to talk with him to find out if it was true or false what [the complainant] had said. I did not get to speak with him, I left a message for him to contact me, but he did not. 8.326 In the Garda statement she added: I sent word to Cappoquin Orphanage through a nun here that I felt that [Mr Restin] was not a suitable person to be with children. The story of Mr Restin resumes in Cappoquin 8.327 Mr Restins evidence was that he did not believe he was asked to leave Passage West, nor did he think Sr Vita knew he had abused boys there. He arranged to move to Cappoquin while he was still working in Passage West. He was vague in his evidence as to how the job arose. He believed that he met Sr Isabella from Cappoquin while he was doing an interview for the childcare course at Waterford Regional Technical College. Cappoquin was nearer to Waterford than Passage West, and would be more convenient if he was doing the course. He believed that he might have told Sr Isabella he was thinking of doing the course, and thought that she suggested that he contact Cappoquin. The job he got in Cappoquin involved general childcare duties, and teaching a remedial class of boys who had reading difficulties. He said that he assumed he would have sought a reference from Sr Vita for the course and for his move to Cappoquin, but there was no record of any such request or reference on file in either Cappoquin or Passage West. The records show that, while Mr Restin was in Passage West, he was also spending time in Cappoquin Industrial School. In the early 1970s, an official from the Department of Education carried out a general inspection of Cappoquin Industrial School and reported that: A ... nurse ... visits the school every few weeks to lend assistance in placements (he helps out similarly in the Passage West School in Cork). 8.329 Mr Restin thought that he abused three boys in Cappoquin. He described the method he used to get to know the child. He said he never used threats and just became friendly with them and then they would literally do what you want. He gave rewards such as sweets but rarely gave money. He said he would stop if the boys wanted him to and denied that he ever forced them. A former resident said that Mr Restin began to abuse him when he was aged 10. The abuse started when Mr Restin came into his dormitory one night, woke him and brought him to his bedroom. Mr Restin fondled his genitals and made the boy do the same to him. On another occasion, when Mr Restin was giving injections, he again molested the boy. He told the boy that, if he did not tell anyone, he would get a pair of roller skates. Mr Restin continued to abuse the boy in this way until his sudden departure from the School. Another witness said he was sexually abused by Mr Restin in the same way on one occasion. He remembered being called into Mr Restins office and told to take down his trousers, whereupon Mr Restin fondled his genitals. He was under the impression that Mr Restin was a doctor in Cappoquin. He thought he was aged around six or seven when this occurred. A further witness recalled that the children were told one Saturday they were going to receive an injection. They were told to go to the old school (St Itas) and line up in the hallway. Mr Restin had a small room off one of the classrooms. The boy was brought in and told to drop his underwear. Mr 382 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
8.328
8.330
8.331
8.332
Restin and Sr Lorenza were present, and Sr Lorenza began to feel his testicles and she told him they were normal. He then remembered getting an injection in the buttocks. 8.333 One other witness gave evidence that, although he himself was not abused by Mr Restin, he remembered him. There was a lot of talk amongst the boys about his giving injections, touching bottoms and things like that, but he never touched him. He was close to one of the Sisters and thought Mr Restin would have been afraid he would talk. He never spoke to the Sisters about what he heard. Sr Viviana worked in Cappoquin at the same time as Mr Restin. He was a nurse and, to her recollection, had a lot to do with the boys. He drove a bus and brought children to the swimming pool. She said that, as a nurse, he would have taken care of their health. She did not recall him giving injections, but there was a room in Cappoquin that was called the surgery, and she often met him coming in and out of there. She said she was always uneasy about Mr Restin, although was not specific as to why: There was something about the man that I didnt tune in to. Another nun, Sr Clarice, described the circumstances of Mr Restins departure. At the time, she was the teaching principal of the girls primary school in Cappoquin and a former Superior of the convent. She had contact with the Industrial School because some of the children attended the primary school and she also helped out at weekends and holiday periods. She remembered Mr Restin as a kind of supervisor in the institution. He was an assistant leader in the Scouts. One day a scout leader warned her about him saying Sr Clarice, go home to Sr Carina and tell her to try and get rid of Mr Restin and do that soon. She went straight to the convent and told the Superior; together, they went to see the Resident Manager, who listened attentively. The manager said that Mr Restin was due to bring the children for an outing the following day and she would put a stop to that. She got rid of him soon after that. The scout leader explained that, while sexual abuse was not spelled out to her by the local man, she sensed the meaning and urgency of the message he was conveying. She said in evidence that she never discussed Mr Restins previous work history with anybody. She did become aware afterwards that he had worked in Passage West in the industrial school, because there was a Sister in Cappoquin who had a sibling, also a Sister, in Passage West: and I think she wrote to her, but it was only just I never read the letter and I never knew anything, but it was really on the urgency of [the local man], thats how I went to the Superior and thats how we went to (the Resident Manager). 8.337 Mr Restin left Cappoquin suddenly. He did not now remember the circumstances and he thought someone may have said something to the nuns about him abusing boys. There is very little information about where Mr Restin was between the time he left Cappoquin in the mid-1970s and his departure for England in the late 1970s. He said that after Cappoquin he went to work in Cork before he left for England. Initially, he worked in a bar and then returned to nursing. Conclusions 8.339
8.334
8.335
8.336
8.338
Mr Restins unsuitability for work with children was clear from his time in Passage West, but that information was not effectively communicated to Cappoquin. Although his unsuitability to take part in a childcare course was known to the management of Passage West and to the Department Inspector, he was able to remain in his position in Cappoquin. If proper inquiries had been made, he should not have been employed in Cappoquin. 383
Children had complained about Mr Restins abuse, but action was only taken when an adult raised the alarm. Children were not listened to or believed when they spoke about what was happening to them, and this allowed abuse to continue.
Visits to Mount Melleray

8.340 Witnesses from Cappoquin gave evidence about visits by boys to the Cistercian Abbey at Mount Melleray. One former resident alleged that he had been sexually abused there in the course of a weekend visit. Mount Melleray Abbey is situated about four miles from Cappoquin and is run by the Cistercian Order. There was no formal relationship between Mount Melleray Abbey and St. Michaels Cappoquin. Informally, however, it would appear that eggs were delivered weekly to the industrial school from the poultry farm and twice a year surplus apples were delivered. Some minor plumbing work was carried out by a monk on occasions and a priest monk from the Abbey went weekly to hear the nuns confessions and to say Mass when the local priest was on holidays. The Sisters also negotiated the transfer of a site from the Abbey farm to accommodate their group homes in or around 1972. Br Cosimo27 was professed in 1957. He attended the oral hearings of the Committee and he said that he acted as the general handyman at the Abbey. It was traditional that once or twice a year he collected excess apples harvested at the nearby Glencairn Abbey and delivered them to St. Michaels Industrial School. He got to know the children and the Sisters and it occurred to him during these visits that the boys would benefit from spending occasional weekends in Mount Melleray where they could enjoy fresh air, gardens and the grounds of the Abbey. He said he had also observed that the industrial school was cramped and there were very few recreational facilities available for the children. Sr Violetta28 or Sr Carina selected the boys who were to spend the weekend. Typically, they would be picked up at the School by one of the guests staying in the Abbey, as Br Cosimo did not drive at the time. They would have their tea, play table tennis or board games, and then retire to bed at around 8.30pm. The boys usually came in the winter months, when the guesthouse was less busy. Br Cosimo would take them for long walks, and he acquired toys and a bicycle for them. None of the other monks had any involvement with the children, as it was considered to be his project and therefore was his responsibility. It appears that from the beginning other members of the Community were unhappy with the presence of young, boisterous and sometimes raucous boys roaming around the Abbey, unsettling the quiet, monastic atmosphere. Br Cosimo had a bedroom in the guesthouse. He said that he sometimes slept on a mattress on the floor of the bedroom where the boys slept if they were unsettled. He also agreed that he would lie on their beds to talk to them and settle them down at night. As far as he could remember it was always on the outside of the covers. If the boys were making noise or messing he would sometimes have to come from his own bedroom to settle them down and he would be dressed in either his habit or his pyjamas. He never touched them inappropriately and any touching was inadvertent and had no sexual element. He was aware that some of the boys who visited were emotionally disturbed and craved attention. It would have been usual for him to give the children a cuddle or a kiss on the cheek or forehead when they arrived in Melleray and when they left. He had no sense of awareness at the time that any of his actions were inappropriate or open to misinterpretation by the boys.
27 28
8.341
8.342
8.343
8.344
384
8.345
Some of the members of the Community complained to the Abbot Visitor during a Canonical Visitation to the Abbey, and the visits were discontinued in early 1975. Sr Viviana was in charge of the group home known as Group Home B and said that she had had no concerns about Br Cosimo and the children until the issue was raised in public in 1996. In 1995 she had been interviewed by Sr Isabella in relation to the recollections of her time in Cappoquin. Sr Isabella kept notes of her interview and in those notes a suggestion was made that Sr Viviana had in fact some concerns about Br Cosimo at the time, enough concern to warrant her interviewing the boys and visiting Melleray Abbey to speak with a senior member of the community with whom she was friendly. When she was reminded about this she gave a vague account of what transpired. It appears that some time in 1974, one or more of the lay staff in the group home mentioned to her that the children were spending a bit of time with Br Cosimo and wondered if this was okay. She was satisfied that Sr Violetta and Sr Carina were happy but she agreed that the lay staff were uneasy about the boys going out. She said that when the concerns of the lay staff were expressed she had no sense of this having anything to do with sex. She interviewed the boys and talked about it and she said she personally felt there was nothing in it. The senior member of the community was a friend of hers and she used to talk to him. She remembered going to see him and expressing a concern that Br Cosimo was taking the boys and asked him what did he think. He told her that Br Cosimo was a mans man and she read nothing more into that other than that he was not very friendly with women. She said she thought no more about it. She does not recall when in 1974 this happened and had no recollection if there was any connection between her conversation and the visits of the boys being brought to an end in February 1975. Conclusions
8.346
8.347
There was no proper assessment of Mount Melleray as an appropriate place to send children in care for weekend breaks. Staff in the institution were uneasy and expressed concerns about the visits. The way that Sr Viviana dealt with the staff unease about the visits showed her awareness of risk to the boys. The information that Br Cosimo was a mans man should not have given any reassurance. In the result, although she carried out some investigation by interviewing the boys and speaking to the Abbot, she did not properly assess the situation and remove the risk to the children that had clearly been identified. Sleeping arrangements were wholly unacceptable.
A recorded case of sexual abuse

8.348 In the mid-1980s, a young boy, David, 29 who was in care in Cappoquin, was placed in part-time employment in a local hotel. He suffered from an intellectual disability, but was able to perform odd jobs there and he returned to the group home at night. In the course of this employment, he was subjected to sexual assault by a chef working in the hotel. The first person to discover the abuse was the boys mother, who reported it to his social worker. Around the same time, his house parent in Cappoquin became suspicious and spoke to the boy. The social worker in her evidence did not recall being contacted by a member of the boys family, even though she had made a contemporaneous note of this contact. She did recall being
29
8.349
8.350
8.351
385
contacted by the House Parent, who told her that a named boy was being sexually abused by a member of staff in a hotel where he was employed for work experience. She then informed the senior social worker, and a meeting was arranged with the Health Boards solicitor to see what to do. 8.352 The Resident Manager, Sr Callida, and the house parent also attended this meeting. The witness said that part of the reason for the meeting was that the local Garda had been approached, but the boy was not willing to make a statement. The advice at the meeting was to contact the Garda Superintendent in the event of the boy not making a complaint. She did not speak to the boy about this matter, even though she was his social worker. She left that to his care worker, the House Parent, because she felt that only one person should speak to a child regarding matters like this. They waited for the Garda to tell them how to proceed but she said that, in the meantime, the man involved had left the hotel employment. It appears from the documentation, however, that the employee did not leave the hotel until some time later, and was recorded as being an employee throughout this time. The boy also continued his employment in the same hotel during this time. The social worker had known about the allegation of abuse earlier, from Davids mother. It appears from her records that she initially discounted the allegation, without checking either with Cappoquin or with David. She did not believe what she was being told about the abuse, as the relationship between the family members was difficult. She telephoned Sr Callida about it, who told her she would check it out but thought it was untrue. She herself did not speak to the child, nor did she speak to the care worker involved. The House Parent, Ms Faughnan30 suspected at first that David was beginning to smoke and drink, but he denied it when confronted by her. She decided to keep a close eye on him. When she was cleaning his room, she discovered money, more than he should have had. He told her he got it from an employee of the hotel and it transpired, when she further questioned him, that he was being sexually abused in return for money. The Resident Manager, Sr Callida, was away for the weekend when the boy revealed this to her. Ms Faughnan went straight to the Garda but they would not formally take a statement in the absence of the Resident Manager, who was Davids legal guardian. The House Parent then went to the hotel and confronted the employee, who admitted the abuse. She told him that she had spoken to the Garda and that he should leave his job, as she did not feel that the boy should have to leave because of his actions. She then contacted Davids social worker from the South Eastern Health Board and attended a meeting with the Health Board later. At that meeting, she was told that, as she had no witness to her conversation with the employee, nothing could be done. She did not feel she got any support from her superiors, and got the sense that she had overstepped her boundaries by the action she had taken. The following day, she observed that David was not at work and she was relieved that he had been kept at home. He approached her and said that he was not going to take the matter any further and was not pursuing it with the Garda. She questioned him as to why, and he told her he just did not want to. She noticed that he had a new radio. He told her that Sr Callida had given him a new radio and a new bicycle. A second record of this allegation of abuse was contained in a memorandum written by a senior member of the Health Board: I visited the group home ... and learnt from the staff that David has been sexually abused by a fellow employee at his place of work.
30
8.353
8.354
8.355
8.356
8.357
386
This has been reported to the local Garda, the staff in the home and myself, we are making further enquiries. 8.358 The memorandum does not advise of the previous allegation made by the family member to the social worker a month earlier. No documentation has been discovered as to how the author of the memorandum handled the matter or how, a week later, the meeting came to be arranged at the offices of the Health Board solicitors which was attended by a senior official from the Health Board, the social worker, the House Parent of the boy who was the centre of the allegation and Sr Callida. The Health Board was concerned to establish if: (a) A complaint could be made leading to criminal prosecution; (b) What are the Boards obligations in relation to [the boy] in its voluntary guardianship capacity. 8.360 The possibility of a complaint being made on the boys behalf was left open. The Health Board was anxious that the boy would continue in the work placement. The advice given, as recorded in the solicitors note, was that: ... the knowledge of these occurrences would be extremely embarrassing for the Boards Staff if there were to be a recurrence of these incidents and a complaint made by the parent or other parties at a later date. ... If there was any further risk to [David] of any nature then they would have to weigh this against the value of the placement to him and preferably withdraw him from the placement. I stressed to them that it was of utmost concern that they do not expose themselves to the risk of a potential complaint in relation to the care given to [David]. It would only take one incident, and a complaint arising out of same to call into question the actions of the Boards staff ... 8.361 8.362 They were advised against approaching the hotel and told instead to contact the Garda. There is no record of any contact being made by either the Health Board official or the social worker with the Garda in this regard. However, the Health Board solicitor advised the social worker in a letter that he had spoken to the Superintendent of the Garda in Cappoquin who told him they had taken the matter up with the alleged abuser prior to Christmas and this person, while unlikely to disclose anything, would: ... be in fear of the consequences of a Garda investigation and we can only hope that this will ensure his co-operation ... I think you would have to be reasonably certain that there is still a problem there before bringing serious consequences to bear on [him]. 8.363 The Health Board official who attended the meeting in the solicitors office also gave evidence to the Investigation Committee. He commended the House Parent for personally confronting the alleged abuser and for the initiative she showed in dealing with the information she had received from the child. He was not happy in relation to the lack of support she received from Sr Callida in the follow-up to the case. He sensed that there was an active encouragement of David not to make anything more of his complaint, because of the consequences it might have for the Centre. He did not want to go as far as to say that there was a feeling that the Resident Manager had prevented a prosecution, but rather that there would have been frustration that rather than an intervention being assisted it had been in some way derailed. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 387
8.359
8.364
He also noted that Sr Callida, although present, did not participate at the meeting in the solicitors office. Sr Callida gave her version of events to the Investigation Committee. She explained that the reason why she did not get involved at the Health Board meeting was because the House Parent had looked after it from the beginning and was the liaison with the boy. When it was suggested to her that, as Resident Manager of the Centre, this was a serious matter of a sexual assault on a child in her care who had an intellectual disability, she said she did not see it as her function to deal with it or report it to the Garda. She left it to the House Parent to deal with it as the boy had reported to her. Sr Callida said in evidence that it was purely coincidental that the boy got a new bicycle around this time. She suggested that it might have been for his birthday and he needed a bike to get to work. She did not keep a record of this incident. Sr Callidas behaviour in giving the boy the bicycle made her junior colleague suspicious that she was discouraging him from pursuing a complaint or prosecution. There is no evidence that that was her motivation but, at a sensitive time in a serious case of sexual abuse, what she did was an example of extremely bad management and of irresponsibility. Conclusions
8.365
8.366
8.367
This complaint of sexual abuse was made in the late 1980s, and the House Parent had no hesitation in informing the Garda and the Health Board. She noticed the boy behaving unusually, investigated and discovered that he was being sexually abused. The way she discovered the abuse, followed it up and reported it were examples of proper care, which placed the boys interest first. The other parties involved failed in their duties. Sr Callida conveyed mixed signals as to her attitude to the issue. The Health Board failed to establish the facts, including interviewing the boy; failed to supervise the social work contacts with the boy and his family; and failed generally to act in the best interests of the boy. The actions of the Resident Manager and the Health Board suggest that damage limitation was their primary consideration.
Testimony regarding befriending/foster families

8.368 Cappoquin, like most other industrial schools, operated a system whereby children were sent to befriending/foster families during holiday periods. Two of the witnesses described very different experiences. One was sent with his brother to a wonderful family. He loved going there so much that he wanted the family to adopt him. The other witness described staying with a befriending family for a few months, during which time he met an older man who worked in a local youth centre. This man showed him a lot of affection, so he requested his house mother in Cappoquin to allow him to move in with him. Permission was given and he moved in. The man repeatedly sexually abused him. The witness said that the experience had a lasting effect on his sexuality, and that he encountered many difficulties in life forming relationships. The Sisters submitted that, as regards this alleged abuse carried out by a third party outside the School, it is difficult to see how the Sisters could have any case to answer in terms of the inability to foresee the abuse. There appears to have been no system for vetting families or of aftercare and, the children themselves were ill-prepared to deal with abuse or exploitation when they left the convent. 388 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
8.369
8.370
Peer sexual abuse

8.371 A Garda investigation into Cappoquin uncovered serious sexual abuse of younger boys by some older boys. One of the perpetrators admitted sexually abusing boys there. He said that he himself had been abused whilst in care and that, when he was moved to Cappoquin, he knew no better. In his statement, he admitted abusing a pupil whilst there, and this pupil gave evidence to the Investigation Committee, where he described how he had been subjected to sexual assault, including rape, by older boys in Cappoquin. When one of these boys beat his brother badly, he stopped the beating by threatening to tell the Resident Manager what was happening. The sexual abuse stopped after he threatened to tell. This witness also told the Investigation Committee that he observed older boys taking younger boys into their beds at night and he suspected what was going on. Another witness described how he saw the lads having sex with each other inside in the home. Conclusion 8.373
8.372
Children were left in the care of older boys in the evening, and this practice allowed physical and sexual abuse to occur. The failure to protect children from such abuse was a reckless and negligent breach of duty on the part of the Sisters of Mercy.
General conclusions
8.374 1. Many of the faults of the Institution were caused by inept management at local level in the group homes and in the Cappoquin Community. The structure of the Sisters of Mercy, which limited the pool of Sisters who could be appointed as Resident Manager, was a contributory factor, but there was a fundamental failure by the Institution and the Community to give priority to the interests of the children in their care. 2. Sisters who gave evidence lacked understanding of the nature and extent of the malfunction of the Institution and the impact on the children. Even at this remove, some expressed concern for their fellow Sisters but did not feel that, as a Congregation, they let the children down. Lay staff confirmed that most of the Sisters in Cappoquin were cold and unfeeling towards the children, although one or two Sisters were mentioned by complainants as being kind and caring. 3. Organisations providing care for the needy and vulnerable must have procedures for monitoring the service, but this was not the case in this Institution. The Community in Cappoquin was inward-looking and motivated by loyalty to its own members, to the detriment of the children in care. 4. The Department of Education complained about the neglect in the School in the 1940s, but it was unable to effect any change for far too long. 5. The Department was negligent in inspecting the institution from the mid 1960s onwards and failed to identify the dysfunction in the group homes in the 1980s. 6. The Department of Health did not provide regular supervision of the children whom it placed in Cappoquin and did not carry out proper inspections. The children were let down by those who purported to look after and protect them.
389
390
Chapter 9
St Josephs Industrial School, Clifden (Clifden), 18721983
Establishment and history

9.01 The Sisters of Mercy established a convent and an orphanage for girls in Clifden, County Galway in 1861 at the request of a local priest. Clifden is located in a remote area approximately 50 miles west of Galway. A branch house was later set up in neighbouring Carna. The orphanage was certified as an industrial school for girls on 15th July 1872. The Mercy Convent in Clifden formed one of five independent units of the Mercy Congregation within the Diocese of Tuam. From its formation in the late 19th century until 1971, it had its own governance structure and was completely autonomous. The convent was overseen by the Archbishop of Tuam. In 1971, the five Mercy convents in Tuam amalgamated to form one diocesan unit, in line with similar changes taking place throughout the country within the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy. The photographs and plans provided by the Sisters of Mercy show the Industrial School as a large imposing building, with the convent immediately adjacent. The original two-storey orphanage building was constructed in 1862, and various additions were made to it over the years. In 1873, after it had been certified as an industrial school, an additional wing was built and, in 1880, a new internal national school and dormitory were erected. In 1886 a kitchen, pantry, dairy, lavatory and infirmary were added. The next major extension to the premises took place in 1933, when four classrooms were added. This was the internal national school, where the Industrial School children were taught. Just yards away, within the grounds of the complex, stood Scoil Mhuire national school, where the children from the surrounding district were taught. Eventually, in 1969, some 33 years after Justice Cussen recommended in his report that, where possible, children in industrial schools should attend local national schools, the two national schools amalgamated.
9.02
9.03
9.04
Staff and management

9.05 Most of the Sisters in Clifden had completed secondary school education and, on entering the Congregation, many went on to train as teachers in Carysfort Training College. As each convent within the Congregation formed its own autonomous unit, the Resident Manager and Sisters appointed to work in the Industrial School had to be drawn from the pool of Sisters available in the mother house in Clifden and Branch house in Carna. The Mother Superior of the convent made the appointments. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 391
9.06
9.07
There were three Resident Managers in Clifden during the period under review: Sr Alma1 held the position of Resident Manager until her retirement in 1942, and was succeeded by Sr Roberta,2 who held this post until 1969; and Sr Sofia3 then took over as Resident Manager until 1984, following the resignation of the certificate by the School in 1983. During Sr Robertas 27-year reign, she also held the position of Mother Superior for two terms, her last term ending in 1971 when the five Mercy convents in the Diocese of Tuam amalgamated. Clifden was very influenced by the personal qualities of Sr Roberta, who ran the School in a strict authoritarian manner. Her departure from the School coincided with the opening-up of the whole industrial school system that occurred after the Kennedy Report in 1970. A significant factor in the running of Clifden was the enormous workload undertaken by Sr Roberta. According to the evidence of the Congregation, she worked long, punishing hours in the Institution. Whilst this can be seen as laudable on the part of the Sister, she was not able to care for the children properly and did not seek extra help from the local convent. Until 1969, when the two national schools amalgamated, three teachers were assigned to teach in the internal national school. They had little or no involvement with the children outside school hours. There were usually three or four Sisters, including the Resident Manager, appointed to work full-time in the Industrial School. Their duties ranged from supervising meals to working in the kitchen, bakery, nursery and laundry. Until 1969, the religious staff worked seven days a week, with little or no holidays. The Sisters were further aided by lay staff, some of whom were former residents. There was an average of eight to 10 former residents who stayed on to work in the Industrial School at any one time. Most of these left some time in their 20s. They had no formal childcare training and completed their education at primary school level. The profile of lay staff changed in the 1970s, when professionals such as teachers and care workers became involved with the School. There was no childcare training available in Ireland until the 1970s, when a full-time childcare course commenced in Kilkenny in 1971.4 Sr Renata5 completed a childcare course in Kilkenny in 1974, and Sr Sofia and Sr Olivia6 attended an in-service training course in Goldenbridge on Saturdays the same year.
9.08
9.09
9.10
9.11
9.12
Children
9.13 The majority of children sent to Clifden were committed by Orders of the District Court under the provisions of the Children Acts and School Attendance Act. Children were committed to Clifden from all over the country notwithstanding its isolated location. There was no train service beyond Galway City and the town was served by an infrequent bus service. In 1933, the School was certified to take 100 girls over the age of six. The accommodation limit was fixed at 120 girls. In 1937, the School accommodated 142 children, although, until the mid-1950s, the numbers remained at or approximately 120. In 1944, the Department of Education changed its system of paying capitation grants to industrial and reformatory schools, from a system of payment according to the number of children they were certified to accommodate, to one under which the schools were paid according to the number of children actually accommodated, up to the limit of their accommodation number.
1 2 3 4 5 6
9.14
This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym. See the chapter on St Josephs and St Patricks Kilkenny for further details in relation to this course. This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym.
392
9.15
Sr Roberta applied to the Department of Health in 1956 for the reception of children from the local authorities. Whilst there is no documentary material confirming the approval of her application, it appears that it was granted, and there is a letter from the Department of Education to the Department of Health referring to the School in favourable terms. On 8th June 1959, Sr Roberta applied to the Department of Education for a revision in the certificate to enable the School to accept junior boys. In support of her application, she stated that, if successful, this would enable siblings to stay together rather than being scattered to various schools around the country. She also made similar representations to the Minister for the Gaelteacht, and added, For some time past our numbers here have fallen so we are most anxious to get the little boys. The ISPCC supported the application, describing the School as excellent. Dr Anna McCabe,7 the Department of Education Medical Inspector, recommended that the Certificate be revised to accommodate a limit of 140 children, including boys up to the age of 10. Indeed, she described Clifden as a particularly good and well run school. However, at the eleventh hour, Sr Roberta withdrew her application to the Department, as the Archbishop of Tuam refused to support it. It is not clear why the Archbishop made this last-minute objection, but the following year Sr Roberta renewed her application, this time with the consent of the Archbishop. She explained: He has now given us the permission as our numbers have decreased very much since then.
9.16
9.17
9.18
9.19
The application was granted, and a notice appeared in Iris Oifigiuil on 7th October 1960, which stated that the certificate for the School had been revised to allow for the admission of junior boys, and the certified accommodation limit was increased to cater for 140 children. In the 1970s, as numbers diminished, boys were permitted to stay into their teenage years. During the 1960s, Sr Roberta actively sought new pupils. In response to rumours in 1964 that the Industrial School in Westport was due to close, she wrote to the Department and stated that she would be more than grateful if you could see your way to send us a few pupils. In 1967, she wrote to the Department, thanking them effusively for sending the School five children. In 1969, during the transitional period when Sr Sofia took over as Resident Manager, the Department reviewed the situation and the official concluded that: Clifden is too small a town to accommodate an industrial school that would be as large as St Josephs is at present. It appears to me that maybe 40 or 50 children consisting of boys and girls would be a sufficient enrolment for Clifden industrial school. In the final analysis, the range of necessary services, consisting of schools etc are too restrictive for an institute of this type in a small town.
9.20
9.21
9.22
The Archbishop of Tuam agreed with the proposal to reduce numbers. In 1971, the accommodation limit was reduced to 60 children. Mr Graham Granville, who was appointed to the position of Child Care Advisor in the Department of Education in the mid-1970s, noted in his Inspection Report of the same year: It would appear upon examination of the files etc. that in the past many of the children admitted to Clifden were received into Care to be removed out of sight out of mind.
9.23
9.24
This policy in his opinion was applied especially to children of different racial backgrounds.
7
393
9.25
A womens magazine carried a feature in the late 1960s commenting on the fact that there were 13 mixed race children in Clifden out of about 80. By 1980, the profile of the children had changed, in that the majority were local children from the surrounding areas.
Group homes
9.26 From the early 1970s, the idea of converting Clifden into a group-home school was suggested. The Department kept a critical eye on the School, after shortcomings in its management were exposed in 1969. The future of the School was reviewed, and it was agreed that numbers should be reduced and the School divided into three groups of between 15 and 20 children, in line with the Kennedy Report recommendations. The Archbishop of Tuam backed the proposal. However, plans were put on hold following a Department inspection in the early 1970s. In the early 1970s, the Reverend Mother, Sr Antea,8 wrote to the Department offering the use of a vacant building for the purposes of a group home. Nothing appears to have come of this proposal, although the following year the Department put the idea of group homes back on the agenda by agreeing to consider a modest grant towards the project. The concept was referred to in the Departments Inspection Reports in the late 1970s and again in the final Inspection Reports of the early 1980s, but dwindling numbers made the project redundant.
9.27
9.28
Closure of Clifden
9.29 In June 1982, the Resident Manager informed the Department that she had given permission to the Galway Association for the Mentally Handicapped to use part of the Industrial School building for their own purposes. She indicated that this was likely to be a permanent arrangement as the building was too large for the group of 24 children resident in the Industrial School. In 1983, that number had further dwindled to 15, prompting the Resident Manager to write to the Department, stating Due to circumstances beyond our control and after consultation with officials of the Western Health Board, and also due to lack of referrals from the Health Board we are reluctantly obliged to close the Home in Mid July. A report by Mr Ciaran Fahy, consulting engineer, on the buildings and accommodation in Clifden, appears in the Appendix to this chapter.
9.30
9.31
The Investigation
9.32 The Investigation Committee heard evidence in three phases. The first phase involved a public hearing at which Sr Margaret Casey, Provincial Leader of the Western Province of the Congregation of Sisters of Mercy, gave evidence on behalf of the Congregation on 10th January 2006. She had no direct involvement with Clifden apart from spending a fortnight there before the School closed down. She drew from the following sources of information in preparing her evidence for the Commissions inquiry:
archival records held by the Congregation; material received from the Commission by way of discovery and complainants statements; documentation arising out of litigation proceedings; and conversations with Sisters who were part of the Community in Clifden.
394
9.33
In her evidence of 10th January 2006, she set out in detail the Congregations position with regard to St Josephs Industrial School, Clifden. In the second phase of the inquiry, the Investigation Committee heard evidence in private hearings from 10 complainants and, at the request of the Sisters of Mercy, from a former resident who had positive memories of her time in Clifden. The Committee also heard evidence during this phase from four respondents, including three members of the Congregation. Finally, in the third phase of the Committees inquiry, Sr Margaret Casey again gave evidence at public hearings on 15th and 16th May 2006 and was questioned in relation to the Congregations position in light of the evidence that had emerged during the private sessions.
9.34
9.35
Physical abuse
Documentary material
9.36 There is one documented case of excessive corporal punishment in Clifden, which relates to an incident which occurred in the early 1980s. A number of siblings were placed in Clifden and reported incidents of violence towards them by a particular lay worker. One of the girls had sustained bruising to her left buttock, allegedly as a result of being hit with a wooden spoon for being unable to do her homework. This allegation gave rise to a Western Health Board investigation. The matter arose when the Community Care Team in the area in which the children resided wrote to the Western Health Board. The letter expressed concern about the possibility of the children being sent back to Clifden: Our anxiety is that in the event of the parents being unable to cope effectively in the future, the only option open is to return these children to this pathogenic atmosphere. 9.39 The Community Care Team requested that the quality of caring in this Residential Home for children be investigated and expressed the opinion that this alleged violence is the work of a particular staff member, rather than residential care policy. There is no documentation relating to the Western Health Board investigation, except a reference by a Department inspector to the fact that one had taken place. A list of staff members available for this time reveals that this staff member remained in employment in Clifden. There is no record of a punishment book as required by the regulations being maintained in Clifden. A book was discovered by the Congregation for the period 1933 to 1956, but it does not provide details of any punishments. It is a general commentary on the conduct of the children which, according to this record, was invariably very good. Sr Margaret Casey confirmed that corporal punishment was a feature of life in Clifden, and she stated that it was the norm at the time. The principal form of punishment was slapping, administered by hand, cane, flat stick or ruler, usually by the Sister on duty. She found no evidence of a policy under which children were sent to the Resident Manager or other senior figures for the administration of punishment, and conceded that punishments were carried out in the presence of other children, usually on the spot. She referred to the punishment book mentioned above, and confirmed it was not maintained after 1956 and was general in nature. Sr Casey acknowledged that the documented case of excessive corporal punishment referred to above was a significant incident. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 395
9.37
9.38
9.40
9.41
9.42
9.43
9.44
She conceded that, with the benefit of hindsight, both the Congregation and individual Sisters regret the use of corporal punishment and recognise the potential effects on these already vulnerable children. In the course of an apology to former residents of Clifden, Sr Casey stated: I suppose we do recognise that the children that were committed to our care...were vulnerable and we do recognise that they were traumatised. The system that prevailed in the Industrial School mitigated against giving them the necessary affection and care that their vulnerability required ... It was necessary dealing with such large numbers to maintain order and strict discipline was required. This obviously had a negative effect on the children and unfortunately we deeply regret that this may have been excessive at times and for this we are truly sorry.
9.45
9.46
All of the complainants who gave evidence alleged physical abuse. They asserted that various implements were used to inflict punishment, including a ruler, cane, a bunch of keys and a towel roller. Allegations were made against members of the Congregation, lay workers and older children. A common thread running through the testimony of the complainants was that punishment was meted out indiscriminately and that this created an environment of fear. One witness, who was a resident for eight years from the early 1950s, stated: it didnt really matter what you were beaten for, it was just one of those things, if they saw you there and you werent doing something then you got beaten for it.
9.47
9.48
Another witness, a resident for 12 years from the late 1950s, stated that they were punished: For nothing, just because they felt like it. If they were angry then they just took it out on you, sometimes you were an innocent victim just sitting there, or just playing and then they attacked you, it all depends on what moods they were in.
9.49
A witness, who was committed for just over a year in the early 1960s when she was 12 years old, remarked: Anybody got it, it didnt make a difference. If you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time or if you were too slow to get your work down or if you didnt get down the stairs quick enough or if you ran...Anywhere they could get you they would hit you. Mainly on the head. That was the sorest. They would hit you with the keys, that was sore.
9.50
Another witness, who was committed to Clifden before she was a year old and spent her entire childhood there during the 1960s and the 1970s, commented: I lived in, I think I watched I was punished, other kids were punished, I think it was being in an environment controlled in fear. I think I was very afraid of the nuns, very afraid of getting things wrong. I think I was constantly in that state of fear of being punished.
9.51 9.52
She added that when the anticipated punishment was actually delivered, it came almost as a relief. A witness, who was committed to Clifden in the late 1950s, at the age of 11, and remained there until she was 16, recalled, on arrival with her sisters, being met by a lay worker. The children were told to take their clothes off for a bath. One of her younger sisters was reluctant to be parted from her favourite red boots. The witness tried to prevent the lay worker from taking the boots and she was punched around the head and told that she would not be permitted to back-answer in Clifden. She further alleged that this carer regularly hit her with a bunch of keys. 396 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
9.53
Another witness, who was in Clifden in the early 1960s when she was 12, described an incident in which she and a boy were confronted by a Sister one afternoon for coming back late. She asked them whether they had had intercourse but they did not understand what it meant. She made the boy pull down his trousers in front of the witness and she beat him with a cane. The witness refused to undergo the same humiliation and tried to escape. The nun pushed her through a glass door. Her hand went through the glass and she banged her chest hard against a brass knob in the door. The Sister proceeded to hit her on the back with a bamboo cane. She did not receive any medical treatment for her injuries. Her chest injury got progressively worse and, when she complained to the same Sister, she was beaten again. Eventually, another Sister discovered the extent of the injury and took her to a doctor. She was admitted to hospital for two and a half weeks. Her family were not informed that she was in hospital. The school record indicates that she was suffering from mastitis, as does a record signed by the GP on the day she was admitted to hospital. A witness who spent her entire childhood in Clifden during the 1960s and 1970s, made several allegations of physical abuse by the Sisters. She stated that, when she was five, a friend blamed her for bringing a cup of water into the schoolroom, which was forbidden. She was punished by a Sister who hit her with a hand brush. She remembered a number of children who had run away being beaten with a cane by a Sister whom she specifically remembered, as she used to dye her hair in the Institution. This Sister gave evidence to the Investigation Committee and vehemently denied this allegation of abuse. Sr Olivia,9 taught the children spelling, and the witness remembered not being able to spell the word colour. The Sister hit her with a hand brush four or five times. She said, Sometimes when you cried that seemed to encourage them to hit more. She recalled other occasions on which she was beaten by the same Sister, including an incident in which she was beaten for not being able to read a passage from the Bible. This witness made allegations of physical abuse against Sr Olivia who denied them. Sr Olivia did confirm that her usual method of administering punishment was to slap children. She accepted that occasionally she thumped the children. She added that this did not happen often and she was not aggressive with the children, but accepted that some degree of force was involved and that she would always regret it afterwards. She stated that, if she felt that she had punished the children unfairly, she would talk to them about it afterwards. Sr Olivia did not recall ever speaking to this witness referred to above after a punishment. Sr Olivia furnished an additional statement dealing with the allegations made against her. In this later statement, she accepted that she occasionally used a hand brush to punish children, whereas in her first statement she stated that she slapped children with her hand only. She explained that initially she was devastated by the allegations made and was confused. She did not want to implicate any other Sister, or indeed herself, by conceding that they used a hand brush to administer punishment. She went for counselling and came to terms with the fact that they had in fact used a hand brush for this purpose. As conditions improved in Clifden, this method of punishment was used less frequently. She stated that there was no special place where children were sent for punishment. It could happen anywhere. She would resort to the hand brush for punishment when, for example, the Resident Manager was away. Sometimes, she had difficulty controlling children and, rather than face the possibility that the nuns in the convent would tell the Resident Manager, she used the hand brush to restore order. The Resident Manager also used the hand brush, but not as often as she had better control of the children.
9
9.54
9.55
9.56
9.57
9.58
397
9.59
Another respondent Sister, who taught the children from the early 1960s, gave evidence that discipline was maintained in the classroom by slapping the children. She used a flat stick called a slapper. If a child was very bold, she would administer two slaps to each hand. Former residents referred to being beaten, whereas she would describe the punishments as being slapped. The Sister recalled an incident involving a complainant whom she would have regarded as her pet. One day, another Sister came to her with the girl and said that she had misbehaved. She slapped her twice. She felt that the complainant never forgave her for this punishment and their relationship was never the same again. The complainant had made allegations of serious abuse against a number of Sisters including this respondent. Sr Elana,10 who taught in Scoil Mhuire from the mid-1950s, and after the amalgamation of the schools, admitted that she did punish children by slapping them on the hands with either a flat stick or a cane. In the late 1960s, she read a series of articles by Dr Cyril Daly published in the daily newspapers, advocating the abolition of corporal punishment. She accepted his views and did not engage in this practice after that.
9.60
9.61
Conclusions
9.62 1. Control in Clifden was maintained through a regime of corporal punishment that was pervasive and, on occasions, excessive. 2. Punishment was administered for trivial offences and led to a climate of fear in the Institution. 3. In the absence of a properly maintained punishment book, it is not possible to say how much physical punishment occurred in Clifden, although the evidence of witnesses would indicate that it was considerably in excess of what would have been regarded as normal at the time. 4. Former residents and staff confirmed the existence of pets in the Institution. Favouritism in such a setting was damaging and undermining because it resulted in discrimination between children.
Neglect
9.63 There were three Resident Managers in Clifden for the period under review, one of whom held the position for a continuous period of 27 years from 1942. Until the early 1970s, there were on average three full-time members of staff working in the Institution looking after a large number of children. In the 1970s, the number of staff in the Institution increased, with teachers and care workers being employed from outside the Congregation. Childcare training became available in the 1970s, with a course commencing in Kilkenny and the Sisters in Goldenbridge providing an in-service training course for members of the Congregation.
9.64
Evidence
9.65 Sr Margaret Casey accepted that the staff-child figures were totally unacceptable by todays standards. She also accepted that the focus was on material things such as shelter and clothes as opposed to care for the children, and that this was reflected in the staff numbers in the School. She said that the Sisters in the School worked under very difficult conditions without support services. When further questioned in regard to the difficulties encountered in the late 1960s, she conceded that
10
9.66
398
during this period, it would appear that the children were being neglected but I would have seen it more as a management failure than actually neglecting the children. 9.67 Referring to the fact that there was a significant pool of Sisters in the convents in Clifden and Carna Sr Casey stated that each of these Sisters was involved in her own ministry, teaching, nursing etc, or retired or engaged in their own professional training, and that there was in fact no surplus supply to direct to the Institution. Two respondent Sisters referred to staff and management issues in their evidence. One worked in the Industrial School from the late 1960s until it closed and stated that, when she was sent to Clifden, there were 86 children and three full-time members of staff: herself, the Resident Manager and a lay worker. Another Sister helped out on a part-time basis. It was a chaotic and stressful environment, involving long working hours and no holidays. She did not make any representations to her superiors at the time for assistance, and simply managed with what she had. She was very unhappy and did seek a transfer. She was told to hold on for a while, you know, that we will get you out of it. Matters did not improve until the early to mid-1970s, when a combination of a decrease in the number of residents and an increase in staff numbers succeeded in reducing the pressure. The Sister confirmed that she did not undergo any childcare training until the mid-1970s, when she attended an in-service training course in Goldenbridge. Another respondent, Sr Carmella,11 who was both teacher and principal in the internal national school from the early 1960s stated that she did not bring any of her concerns to the attention of Sr Roberta who held the posts of Resident Manager and Reverend Mother: No, I did not discuss with the Reverend Mother. I just did what the Reverend Mother told me to do and my work was to teach in the School and that was it. That was what was allotted to me and I did what I could there. But it was the Reverend Mother, she determined the lot of each individual. 9.70 She simply did what she was told to do, as Sr Roberta was that kind of person that her word was law, she was in authority and that was it. She stated that Sr Roberta, the Resident Manager, and Sr Veronica,12 her Deputy, were strict with the children and could have shown them more compassion. She accepted that the Resident Manager might have appeared frightening to a child, she had a very strong voice, her voice alone would frighten you and I say that alone would make a child afraid. Sr Carmella accepted that there were some teething problems when a new Resident Manager was appointed in 1969, and recalled the Garda calling to the School in relation to an incident. She was asked about a query, in a Department Inspection Report for this period, regarding the reasons behind the shortage of Sisters in the Industrial School, despite the fact that they formed part of a Community of 40 Sisters. Her rationale for this situation was that nobody wanted to work for the new Resident Manager. She reiterated Sr Caseys evidence that all of the Sisters in the convent had their own duties, such as working in the hospital or domestic economy school, or they were retired nuns. There were not any nuns available to work in the Industrial School. In the late 1960s, the Department of Education discovered that, small babies, admitted to the institution, were being sent out to families in the countryside without the consent of the Department or County Council. They sought an explanation from the Resident Manager, who responded that this had arisen as a result of an outbreak of smallpox and the need to isolate the babies. She confirmed that she paid the families 2.00 per week and supplied them with necessities, including
11 12
9.68
9.69
9.71
9.72
9.73
399
baby foods, drops, clothes, prams and cots. She stated that she believed that this course was in the best interests of the children but agreed that it would not happen again. 9.74 There was a difficult transition period in 1969 when Sr Roberta, the Resident Manager, resigned her post after 27 years and a new Resident Manager, Sr Sofia, was appointed. At that stage, there were 89 children in the School and two permanent staff members. The Acting Inspector of Industrial and Reformatory Schools, Mr Phelan,13 visited the School in October 1969 and advised the Dublin Metropolitan Childrens Court that Clifden was over-crowded and that no further children should be committed there. Following this inspection, the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education wrote to the Archbishop of Tuam in October 1969, expressing his concern at the staff shortages in Clifden: My Lord Archbishop, I am aware of your deep interest in the welfare of the children in St. Josephs School, Clifden, and on that account I request the assistance of Your Grace in the solution of the following problem relating to the institution. In the course of a recent visit to St. Josephs the acting Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools was concerned to find that a group of the older girls were flouting authority by refusing to attend school, by roaming the streets of Clifden after dark catcalling and behaving rudely to their elders and that the Garda had visited the school last week with a view to establishing a more disciplined behaviour on the part of the children in residence there. In the opinion of the acting Inspector, which is shared by Father Costello,14 a curate in the parish, whom he called on during the course of his visit, the serious deterioration of standards in St. Joseph's is directly attributable to the insufficient staff employed to look after the 85 boys and girls at present in the institution and as a consequence this shortage of staff places an intolerable and unfair burden on the shoulders of Sr. Sofia, who has recently been assigned to manage the industrial school. To organise efficiently an institution of the size and nature of St. Joseph's, two additional nuns one of whom, if at all possible, should have experience in nursing or child care would need to be allotted full time to assist Sr. Sofia in her duties and extra lay help is also needed in the kitchen and dormitory to the extent decided by Sr. Sofia. It is in connection with the former requirement that I would ask Your Grace to approach Mother Roberta, the Superior of the community in Clifden, to ensure that the two additional nuns referred to above be assigned to full time duties in St. Joseph's as a matter of urgency, if effective control of the older girls is to be restored and a source of grave criticism of the industrial school removed. In regard to the engagement of extra lay staff as required by Sister Sofia, I would like to make the following point for Your Grace' s information, Mother Roberta has been resident manger of the school for a number of years and in this position has received the maintenance grants paid by this Department and the local authorities responsible for the children detained in the school by court order. It seems, however, as a result of the recent inspection that by reason of advancing years and other duties in her capacity as Superior of the convent, Mother Roberta now has little time to devote to the actual day to day care of the children though she still controls the finances of the school. In my opinion this is an entirely unsatisfactory arrangement which must restrict Sr. Sofia in the employment of the extra lay assistance which she so badly needs, and the introduction of the other measures deemed essential if all round standards in the school are to be raised.
13 14
9.75
400
Administratively it would be a simple matter to change the payment of the maintenance grants from Mother Roberta to Sister Sofia but in the particular circumstances of the community in Clifden this change would not be effective unless Your Grace interfered to make it so. Accordingly, I would also ask Your Grace to use your good offices to ensure that the financial control of the maintenance grants paid by this Department and the Local Authorities in respect of the committed children is placed in the hands of Sr. Sofia so that she may have a free hand in her efforts to restore to St. Joseph's School its former high standard of performance in the field of caring for the deprived and underprivileged child. I have the honour to be, my Lord Archbishop, Yours sincerely, Assistant Secretary. 9.76 The Archbishop duly made representations to Sr Roberta who assured him that extra staff would be deployed in the School. The acting Inspector again inspected the School a few months later and found conditions much improved, as documented in his internal memorandum: St. Josephs, Clifden Runai-Cunta, On my visit to Clifden Industrial School ... I found that the new manager had made good progress in the task of restoring acceptable standards in the conduct of this school. Numbers have been reduced from 85 to 72, and dormitories were clean and smelt pleasantly and a new locker has been purchased for every child. In the refectory new chairs have been provided and a substantial dinner has replaced the traditional bread & tea as the Saturday mid-day meal. Minor improvements in the washing facilities have also been made and Sr Sofia has a programme of painting & decorating, additional heating and a more suitable arrangement of w.c. accommodation in the pipeline. Furthermore she has increased the staff from three to nine and has been successful in placing or transferring six senior girls who had got completely out of hands. We discussed further reductions in numbers, additional staff who would sleep in and become more involved in the social life of the children and the assistance of an Art teacher who would help plan a more individual colour scheme in the childrens dress. Most schools buy in bulk from shops and factories which can effect a saving of up to 35% but can result in the child having to fit the article rather than the opposite. Sr Sofia was advised to postpone structural alterations for the present and to expect a visit next May to discuss the progress of her plans. The Archbishop was to pay a further visit .... I subsequently saw Fr. Costello C.C. who supports Sr. Sofia in her determination to improve matters in St. Josephs. Dialogue on most matters will shortly be allowed in the community at Clifden which may reveal why out of a strength of 40 nuns only two are willing to work in the industrial school, though all have taken vows to care for the poor the sick and the ignorant. [A] Having seen the chaos which existed with 85 children in residence and insufficient staff & the relative improvement with 72 children and additional staff, I am now moving towards the view that in a small town like Clifden with its limited services and its comparatively isolated position, the number of children who could be successfully integrated in the school life and social activities of the district should be not more than 4050 (boys + girls) and if you agree, I will discuss this question on the phone with Sr Sofia. In the meantime I am asking [a], Kindergarten Organiser to call on Sr Sofia and advise her on the employment of the childrens time outside school hours. [Handwritten notes at bottom of page] CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 401
9.77
Since writing this report Sr. Sofia phoned to say that the Archbishop had visited ... & she felt he would like to be informed of the results of the recent inspection. In view of his continuing interest it might be well to put the proposal at A above to him in the first instance together with the recent views on the school. 9.78 The Archbishop was kept informed of developments and agreed that, ultimately, numbers would have to be reduced. A further inspection some five months later reported that five Sisters worked part-time on a regular basis in the School, and an additional Sister had been appointed on a full-time basis. Dr Anna McCabe was appointed Medical Inspector of Industrial and Reformatory Schools in 1939 and held the post until 1965. She also carried out General Inspections of the schools. There are General Inspection Reports available for most of the 1940s and 1950s. All of these reports, without exception, refer to Clifden in glowing terms. Year after year, it is referred to as an excellent and extremely well-conducted school. The Resident Manager, Sr Roberta, and her deputy, Sr Veronica, are also praised and referred to as very capable and kind. The last Inspection Report by Dr McCabe with regard to Clifden is dated 1962. Sr Casey and complainant witnesses testified that inspections were notified to the school in advance and that conditions were improved for the visits. Dr McCabe carried out Medical Inspections at the same time as the General Inspections, and these are documented separately. All of her Medical Reports are very positive. The local GP completed Quarterly Medical Returns for the Department which noted that the health of the children was excellent, their diet varied and they were well nourished, clean and neat in appearance. The children were taken for walks and drives in the countryside and the accommodation was in good condition. Dr C E Lysaght was contracted by the Department of Education to conduct one-off inspections of industrial and reformatory schools in 1966. He provided a detailed General and Medical Inspection Report in regard to Clifden after an inspection in 1966. Overall, his report was very positive. He asked why the industrial school children were taught separately from the local children and was told by Sr Veronica that this was the way it had always been and that, in any event, the local primary school was too small to cater for them. There was a hiatus in inspections until 1969, when the Acting Inspector visited the School and was alarmed to find it overcrowded and understaffed. It is apparent that the reports of the acting inspector were more child-centred than those of his predecessors, who tended to concentrate on the physical aspects of the Institution as opposed to the standard of care provided to the children. Mr Graham Granville was appointed to the position of Child Care Advisor in the Department of Education in the mid-1970s. He conducted five inspections of Clifden between the mid-1970s and the early 1980s. In general, these reports were positive although he expressed concern about the aftercare and the socialisation of the children into the community. 402 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
9.79
9.80
9.81
9.82
9.83
9.84
9.85
9.86
9.87
9.88
9.89
Food
9.90 Sr Casey said she had spoken to two Sisters who expressed concern about the adequacy of the food in the School in the mid-1960s. She accepted that, in the 1950s and through to the early 1960s, the food was very basic; at teatime they had bread, butter and jam every day. Most of the complainants made allegations regarding the poor quality and quantity of food in Clifden. Many of the witnesses recall always being hungry, and resorted to stealing food intended for the farm animals and bread from the bakery. Another former resident, who spent her childhood in Clifden during the 1960s and 1970s, stated that conditions changed in 1969 when a new Resident Manager was appointed. There seemed to be more money and they never went hungry. This contrasted with previous years, when she recalled always being hungry and eating food destined for the pigs. However, with the regime change, she recalled another type of panic around food, because we had to eat what we got and if we didnt eat it we got lashed. Well, I got hit. I remember get being beat because I couldnt eat my food. She recalled, in particular, being beaten by one Sister for not eating her food quickly enough, but this Sister denied hitting the witness or any other child across the face for not eating their food quickly. One respondent who gave evidence was a national schoolteacher who had taught children in Carna national school before being transferred to Clifden internal national school in the early 1960s. She stated that, in comparison with the children in Carna, the Industrial School children were well fed and clothed. In its Submissions, the Congregation concedes that: in view of the repetition of complaints about food, and the evidence of certain particular complainants such as [the complainant named] it seems likely that hunger was a real issue for the children in Clifden industrial, at least up to a certain period of time, perhaps the late 1960s ... The food does not seem to have been adequate in quantity to satisfy the appetite of the children. It is accepted that children probably did, on occasion, steal loaves of fresh bread and extra portions of food whenever they could.
9.91
9.92
9.93
9.94
Education
9.95 In 1939, a Preliminary Report was carried out by a Department Inspector into the feasibility of amalgamating the internal national school and the local national school, Scoil Mhuire, which were located yards from each other within the same grounds. The manager of both schools, Mother Alma, was open to the idea, but expressed reservations about the attitude of parents of children in Scoil Mhuire to the proposal. The Department Inspector reported in May 1942 that while in his view it was perfectly feasible to amalgamate the two schools: The Rev. Mother of the Community, Mother Alma, who is manager of both schools, and the principal teacher of the Convent N.S. are all three opposed to the idea of having the pupils of both schools taught together, mainly because they fear that the parents of the children attending the N.S. would object. I think it likely that there would be some such objection. 9.97 Furthermore, 4,000 had recently been spent on upgrading the Industrial School classrooms, which would be wasted if an amalgamation took place. The inspector concluded that, In my opinion, the pupils of the Industrial School would not gain, educationally or otherwise, by being taught along with the pupils of the other school and I do not think the present arrangement should CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 403
9.96
be altered. The Department accepted the conclusions of the inspector and the status quo would remain unchanged until July 1969 when the two schools were amalgamated. 9.98 In 1972, the Sisters expressed dissatisfaction at the lack of post-primary educational facilities in the area, and in particular the lack of vocational training. They maintained that this had impeded the development of the Industrial School. The Department investigated the matter and was reasonably happy with the facilities available. A vocational school replacing the two secondary schools in Clifden was opened in the mid-1970s. Sr Casey stated at the Phase I public hearing: Up to the 60s the level of education was generally that of Primary Cert, but there was industrial training provided as well and the children would have been expected to engage in significant amounts of domestic work depending on their age, such as the laundry, kitchen and bakery and at any given time a child would have helped on the farm. These things all of them together would undoubtedly have made the children feel that in some sense their childhood was thwarted or stunted. 9.100 She added that, in the 1970s, there was a drive to ensure that those children who were capable and interested in pursuing post-primary education were given the opportunity to do so. Again, during the 1970s, children were sent to different schools in the locality, or indeed sent to boarding school, in an effort to minimise the institutional nature of their upbringing and enable them to mix with other children. Sr Casey accepted that it would have been better, from a socialisation point of view, if the children had been amalgamated with the local national school children back in 1942 when the issue was first raised. It was put to her that the reasoning behind objecting to the amalgamation reflected less a concern for the welfare of the children and more an interest in preserving the financial investment which had been made in the School. Sr Casey accepted that this was one interpretation of the matter. Many of the complainants gave evidence as to the inadequacy of the standard of education they received in Clifden. One witness, who was committed to Clifden in the early 1950s at the age of seven and spent eight years there, stated she was continuously reprimanded in class, both physically and verbally, to the extent that she found it impossible to learn anything. In one particular class, she regularly had to stand in a corner wearing a dunces hat. She has difficulty reading and writing to this day. As regards practical skills, she learned to cook and do laundry work. The only training she received in preparation for life after Clifden was domestic training. Two other witnesses complained that an over-emphasis on religious studies deprived them of other educational skills. One of these witnesses was five years old when she was sent to Clifden in the late 1950s. She stated: You were drilled with religion and if you didnt know it that you got beaten and that you had to stand on the desk or kneel down and face the blackboard or face the wall, turn around against the wall ... we didnt go on to the Leaving or Inter or anything. We were not even able to read or write when we left the Institution. It was just sheer luck that we did survive. We had the survival skills but we did not have the educational skills. 9.105 She also alleged that she was taken out of class to take care of young children. The second witness, who was committed to Clifden in the early 1960s and spent just over a year there, described the Sister who taught her as vicious. She had a bamboo cane, which she used with 404 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
9.99
9.101
9.102
9.103
9.104
great zeal if the children did not know their lessons. She concentrated on religious studies. She alleged that they spent more time trying to avoid beatings than learning. 9.106 The Congregation denied that there was an emphasis on religious studies and that children were taken out of class to engage in domestic chores. Another former resident in Clifden, who was committed in the late 1950s at the age of 10 and remained there until she was discharged at the age of 16, also alleged that she often worked in the nursery during school hours. She stated that the standard of her education did not improve on what she had been taught prior to being committed. The school records indicate that her reading, writing and calculation were basic when she came to the School, but she insisted that her abilities in these areas were very good at this stage. She also asserted that, when she sat the Primary Certificate, all of the children copied from each other with the full knowledge of the supervising Department inspectors. The Congregation submits that this latter allegation is utterly implausible. A complainant who spent her childhood in Clifden during the 1960s and 1970s gave evidence in relation to the Sister who taught her in 6th class: we were terrified of her because she was very cruel. I used to be dreading going into her class because she used to teach in 6th class and I spend years dreading going into her class because I feared that she would punish me. 9.109 When she finally did go into 6th class, she found that she was not afraid of the teacher. In fact, the Sister ignored her completely in class because she gave backchat on one occasion. She does not recall ever being beaten by her, nor witnessing another child being beaten in class. However, the witness does recall Sr Elana lashing children for attempting to run away. She stated that this Sister had a reputation of targeting the industrial school children for punishment. This respondent, Sr Elana, remembered the complainant as a quiet girl. She accepted that she was strict in class but maintained that this was necessary to preserve order. When the two national schools merged in 1969, she felt that some of the industrial school children would have benefited from remedial teaching which was not available at that time. She did not have any time to give special attention to pupils in need. Another Sister, Sr Carmella, felt that the School was under-staffed. The children did not achieve as well academically as their peers in Scoil Mhuire. She said that no real efforts were made to deal with the fact that the industrial school children were behind educationally in comparison with the pupils in Scoil Mhuire. She helped them with their study in the afternoons and another Sister, who was partially blind, helped with reading, spelling and tables, but that was the extent of the assistance given. She stated that they did eventually catch up with the other pupils. Ultimately, the amalgamation improved them in every way, Their outlook, their behaviour and everything. They learned from the other children. Despite the apparent emphasis on educating the children, most of them were destined for a life in some sort of domestic service. Sr Carmellas explanation was that such an outcome was never questioned: I think the order of the day was that in the end of it they were going to end up as domestics. Sr Roberta, who held the position as Resident Manager until 1969, decided who would go on to secondary school. She would have liked to have seen more children go on to further education. Sr Carmella stated that chores did not interfere with their schooling and were carried out before and after school. Girls between 14 and 16 years of age took part in a domestic economy course. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 405
9.107
9.108
9.110
9.111
9.112
9.113
9.114
The children were taught music after school and there was an emphasis on musical education in the School. She was not of the view that inordinate pressure was put on the children with regard to their performance for the Christmas concert and thought that they quite enjoyed the preparations. 9.115 She denied that there was a marked emphasis on religious education over other subjects, and stated that half an hour every day was given towards religious education. The School followed the national school curriculum and was subject to Department inspections. On the question why the children did not fare better academically, the Congregation submitted that the following factors should be taken into account:
9.116

9.117
The psychological and emotional state of these vulnerable children, as well as the effects of institutionalisation, which would have had repercussions on their ability to learn. The pre-existing standard of education of children who were older when committed. The absence of remedial facilities. The effects of corporal punishment and such practices as wearing a dunces hat. The absence of motivation where there were no post-primary educational opportunities and the emphasis in the industrial training provided focused largely on a future in domestic service. The gap between what the prescribed curriculum offered and the needs of children in institutional care.
The standard of education in Clifden was below that available in local national schools. The failure to amalgamate the children with local children for national schooling caused disadvantage, both socially and educationally. The interests of the local community and the Congregation were placed ahead of those of the children in care. Excessive corporal punishment had a damaging effect on institutionalised children. It would appear that children in Clifden were regarded as suitable for domestic work and trained accordingly. The Congregation was correct to draw attention to the effects of corporal punishment and such practices as wearing a dunces hat.
Chores/Industrial training
9.118 Sr Casey confirmed that children had to rise early in the morning, on a rota basis, to light the furnaces and fires. This practice stopped when central heating was installed in the School in the early 1950s. The children did various chores around the School and, when old enough, assisted in the laundry and bakery and on the farm. She did not accept, based on the enquiries she made, that the children engaged in heavy-duty work on the farm. The extent of their involvement would have been limited to collecting eggs, cleaning the hen-house and making butter. She conceded that the work in the laundry was hard until the 1960s, when machinery was introduced. She did not accept that children were taken out of school to assist with domestic chores. She added that the Congregation: again with hindsight would wish to acknowledge that the routine nature of the School reflected in the institutional nature of the setting was very far removed from what children would have experienced in the ordinary rhythm of a family home. Its possibly true to say as well that the routine nature was the way Sisters lives was organised themselves so it was transposed to the Industrial School setting. 406 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
9.119
9.120
9.121
Most of the complainants alleged that they had to rise early in the morning, on a rota basis, to carry in turf and coal to light the boilers. One complainant, who was in Clifden from the late 1950s and remained there until the early 1970s, added that, if the pot of water for tea was not boiled by 8am, those on duty were beaten and were put on the rota for the following week. Another recurring complaint was that older girls were taken out of school to look after babies and toddlers, a claim denied by the Congregation. A complainant, who was committed at the age of 10 in the late 1950s and remained there until the mid-1960s, asserted that she worked on the farm and assisted with haymaking. She also worked in the laundry from the age of 11 and washed the nuns clothes. Another complainant, sent to Clifden at the age of 12 in the early 1960s for just over a year, stated that regular chores included picking weeds and thistles from the nuns graves, washing and polishing floors, and working in the laundry. The Congregation submits that it is likely that complainants merged together the different types of chores they engaged in at different ages and failed to distinguish between chores and industrial training. In Clifden, as in all girls industrial schools, much of the maintenance and upkeep of the School was done by the residents, often in the guise of domestic training.
9.122
9.123
9.124
9.125
9.126
9.127
Clifden was characterised by an exceptionally small staff, and it is therefore inevitable that the heavy maintenance work associated with a large institution was done by the girls themselves. Even complainants who were critical of the School conceded that it was kept spotlessly clean, and it was clear from the reports of Dr McCabe that she was impressed by the hygiene standards there. This was achieved by a disciplined round of chores and duties on the part of the girls. It also appears that the older girls had to provide the high level of care needed by the very young children. The distinction between using children as a labour force and providing them with industrial training was an important one. The failure to observe this distinction in Clifden sometimes led to exploitation.
Health/Hygiene
9.128 A complainant described the general state of cleanliness of the children as follows: They were filthy, black eyes, dirty clothes or torn clothes ... the hair was sore, and the fleas used to eat right through the hair, all scabbed. The childrens hair was full of scabs, full of sores, oozing and the filth and dirt and blood coming from the hair. 9.129 She said she never had a toothbrush in Clifden. The children washed their teeth with bread soda. They were bathed about once a month. There were two big baths, and the children queued up naked for their baths. She found this humiliating as she started to develop. The younger children went first and, while water was added at intervals, it was filthy by the time the last of the girls took their bath. A witness from the mid-1960s said that the older children checked the younger childrens heads for lice and, if lice were discovered, the children were called dirty or filthy. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 407
9.130
9.131
Head lice were a constant problem which was treated by putting a white powder in the childs hair and by keeping the hair short. The Resident Manager, Sr Roberta, used to check their heads for lice and children whose heads were infested were beaten. Another complainant, sent to Clifden at the age of 12 in the early 1960s stated that the children had to sit down every evening and inspect each others heads for lice. A complainant remembered during the 1960s a lay worker cutting her hair in a very rough manner, leaving her with chunks of hair missing. Every night, both boys and girls got undressed downstairs. They went up to bed in their underwear. She remembered feeling shy in front of the boys. They kept their nightdresses under their pillows. Each morning, they went downstairs to dress. She remembered always being cold. A number of complainants stated that they received no information about menstruation or the facts of life. When their periods started, they depended on the older girls to explain what was happening. Girls left Clifden with little or no knowledge of adolescent development and the facts of life and were extremely vulnerable in the outside world. This fact should have been apparent to the Sisters who cared for them. Sr Carmella gave evidence that the children kept their school clothes in the classroom, and changed before and after school. This was a practice that she had introduced, as the children used come to school late because they could not find items of clothing. They knitted their own jumpers and she helped them make their own skirts. They wore overalls over their clothes after school. The childrens hair was always clean and she never observed any children with lice.
9.132
9.133
9.134
9.135
9.136
9.137
There was undue emphasis on cleaning and polishing the premises of the Industrial School and far less emphasis on the personal cleanliness of the children. The lack of any proper preparation for menstruation was insensitive and amounted to neglect
Bed-wetting
9.138 One complainant, who was resident in Clifden for 12 years from the late 1950s, stated that children who wet the bed at night did not have sheets. A rubber cover was put over the mattress. They were not permitted to wear nightclothes and slept naked. If they wet the bed, they were beaten. Their blanket would have to be washed that day and put back on the bed semi-dry. Another former resident in Clifden from the age of 10, who was committed in the late 1950s and remained there until she was discharged at the age of 16, described how children who wet the bed were called pissy beds. One of the Sisters or a lay worker would make them wrap the wet sheets around them whilst they cleaned under their bed. A further witness, who was committed to Clifden for just over a year in the early 1960s at the age of 12, recalled one boy who was punished for wetting the bed by being sent out to the cows in the field with his wet sheet wrapped around him.
9.139
9.140
9.141
Bed-wetting was a perennial problem in Clifden and there is no evidence of a more enlightened approach there. One witness gave convincing evidence of boys being left to sleep directly on rubber mattresses without sheets or pillows. This was a harsh treatment for children who wet the bed. Another gave evidence that sheets were put on these beds when the Department inspector was due. The Congregation acknowledged that it was possible that children who wet the bed were treated inappropriately. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
408
Contact with families

Documentary material 9.142 Clifden is located in a rural area 50 miles west of Galway City. Public transport consisted of an infrequent bus service. Children were committed from all over the country by the District Courts. Only one of the 10 complainants who gave evidence to the Investigation Committee was from County Galway. A document discovered by the Department which gives details of children in care in the mid-1970s shows that, out of the 48 children in care, only two came from Galway. In contrast, by the early 1980s the majority of children in Clifden were from County Galway and surrounding areas. Given the fact that the majority of the children placed in care came from deprived backgrounds, it was very difficult for families to maintain contact with their children in Clifden. It is clear that little regard was given to the recommendation, contained in paragraph 52 of the Cussen Report, that children should be sent to industrial schools near their homes whenever practicable. In the representations made by the Resident Manager to the Department for the admission of junior boys to the School in 1959, and again in 1960, she stated that the admission of young boys with their sisters would keep siblings together and so assist in the formation of familial bonds. She also stated that, in any event, girls in the School met up with their brothers in St Josephs Industrial School, Salthill on a regular basis. The Western Health Board, who supported the proposal, reiterated these arguments in their own representations to the Department. Mr Granvilles Inspection Reports in the 1970s and 1980s make reference, over and over again, to the limited contact between children and their families despite every effort being made. He also referred to the lack of personal effects, such as photographs etc. Sr Casey acknowledged that there was little contact between children and their families, largely because they came from far-flung parts of the country. There were no restrictions imposed by the School on children visiting home, unless it was inappropriate to do so. If family did visit, they were always welcomed and, if they sent gifts or letters, these were passed on to the children. She stated that children were sent to families in Galway and surrounding counties for holidays from the 1960s, in an effort to give the children some idea of what family life was like. Many of the complainants have bitter memories of the absence of any effort on the part of the Sisters to maintain links with their families and, in some cases, the derogatory manner in which the Sisters referred to their families. Sr Carmella was of the view that the children had little knowledge of the outside world and were insular in their outlook: They hadnt an idea what family life was like. I remember a child asking me she saw an ad in the paper for Stork margarine, it was a family sitting around the table and she said to me, is that what a family is like? They hadnt a clue. They hadnt an idea what a dwelling house was like. They were used to big rooms and big utensils and everything big. They just didnt have a clue, until they went out on holidays later on. 9.150 She found her years teaching the industrial school children very fulfilling: I felt that I was taking the place of their parents and the majority of them could confide in me. She agreed that there were some children who should never have been in the School and would have been better off at home. The system had no means of catering for children who required extra care and attention, or bright children whose talents could have been fostered. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 409
9.143
9.144
9.145
9.146
9.147
9.148
9.149
9.151
9.152
The geographical location of Clifden made it almost impossible for children to remain in contact with family.
Preparation for departure/aftercare

9.153 Mr Granville made a number of references in his inspection reports to the deficiency in aftercare facilities and the lack of co-ordination of such facilities between the School and the Health Board. Sr Margaret Casey said that the children received industrial training, which consisted of tuition in crafts, needlework, knitting, laundry, housekeeping, gardening, minding young children and serving in the parlour: this was seen as industrial training and as an effort to prepare them for life after the industrial school and for future employment. She accepted that, until 1969, the primary career envisaged for the children was a career in domestic service. Former residents complained that they were not given any advance notice that they were due to leave the Institution. One witness, a resident in Clifden during the late 1950s and 1960s, stated that she was told the morning she left that she would be leaving Clifden that day. The nuns had organised a job for her in the laundry of a hospital in Galway. Another witness, who spent over five years in Clifden from the late 1950s when she was 10 years old, is adamant that she left the Institution, months after her sixteenth birthday, contrary to certain Department and Sisters of Mercy records. However, the Department pupil file for this witness appears to substantiate her claim. The file shows that her height and weight were measured approximately three months after her sixteenth birthday. She confronted a Sister about this at the time who responded, You are nothing but a pauper. When she did eventually leave, she was not given advance notice. The positive witness proposed by the Congregation who gave evidence also spoke about being retained after her sixteenth birthday, and stated that Sr Roberta decided when girls could leave and that her word was law.
9.154
9.155
9.156
9.157
9.158
Emotional abuse
9.159 Sr Margaret Casey conceded: at the very least that the individual needs of the child could not be addressed, that each childs potential could not be known or realised so we do accept that some children experienced life there as being harsh and also impersonal, in fact even abusive. For this we are deeply sorry. 9.160 She puts this down in part to the fact that the child-staff ratio was very high until the 1970s, and in part to the lack of training for staff in childcare. She was asked whether there was, in effect, an embargo on showing affection. Sr Casey accepted that Sisters were discouraged from showing affection to the children, and said that this had to be viewed in the context of the vows taken by the Sisters when entering religious life. Rather than showing love and affection to one person, you measured out the same degree of affection to everyone. Many of the complainants alleged that Sisters and a lay worker often made disparaging remarks regarding their families and treated them disrespectfully if they came to visit. 410 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
9.161
9.162
9.163
Sr Olivia accepted that, particularly during her early years in Clifden, it was a cold, bleak place with little room to show love or affection to the children. Sr Carmella stated that the children craved affection, which they sought from the Sisters. They were not chosen as pets by the Sisters, rather they would attach themselves to a particular Sister. However, there was, in effect, a prohibition on showing affection to the children, and the Sisters were encouraged to maintain their distance. The two national schools merged in 1969 and the children from the Industrial School joined the local children in Scoil Mhuire. Sr Carmella explained: they found it very hard to mix in the beginning, they felt very insecure the first year because they didnt seem to belong anywhere. They were very secure down with us and how they were like thrown in with the towns children and I felt they were lost the first year.
9.164
9.165
9.166
Prior to this, they did not mix at all with the people from the locality, as the Resident Manager did not allow it. This respondent stated that many of the Sisters had good relationships with the children and there was a fair amount of interaction between the Sisters in the convent and the children. When asked to elaborate on this interaction, however, she stated that the children were often up in the convent cleaning. Sr Elana, who taught in Scoil Mhuire from the late 1950s, confirmed that the convent, where she resided, was on the same grounds as the Industrial School, although the Sisters in the convent had little contact with the children. It was a relatively large community, with approximately 30 Sisters in the late 1960s. They were not encouraged to interact with the children from the Industrial School. Two former residents of Clifden had positive memories of small acts of kindness to them by some nuns, even though they sometimes occurred in circumstances where other nuns had been particularly cruel. A witness, who was sent to Clifden at the age of 10 in the late 1950s and remained there until the mid-1960s, recalled good memories of one respondent, Sr Carmella. She remembered being hit by her on only one occasion. This Sister was kind to the children and the witness felt that she could talk to her. She alleged that this Sister gave her white socks to wear in order to cover bruises on her legs that she had sustained at the hands of Sr Veronica. The Congregations Submission following the Phase III hearings rebuts the accusation that Sr Carmella was somehow complicit in physical abuse. The witness described another Sister, who worked on the farm, as a lovely nun. She would allow the children to eat the left-over food from the convent, which had been destined for the pigs. At Christmas time, the children would receive a handkerchief, comb or hair slide in a brown paper bag. They were taught singing and dancing and performed at feiseanna. Another complainant, who was committed to Clifden for just over a year in the early 1960s when she was 12 years old, recalled one particular Sister who was kind: When Sister Veronica beat us up, or Sister Roberta, and we would be sore or crying she would always put her hand on your shoulder and tell you not to cry, that everything would be okay. But everything wasnt okay down there. Everything was bad. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 411
9.167
9.168
9.169
9.170
9.171
9.172
9.173 9.174
9.175 9.176 9.177
The witness also named one Sister who was fine, because she did not beat the children. Her abiding positive memory of Clifden is spending time with the animals on the farm. The recollection of complainants, that Clifden was a cold, cheerless environment with little emotional contact from the Sisters who worked there, is borne out by the evidence of the Sisters themselves. The Congregation proposed that evidence should be heard from a former resident, Mary,15 who had positive memories of the Institution. In addition, in its written Submissions to the Commission, the Congregation asked the Investigation Committee to take account of the evidence of one of the complainants, who was committed to Clifden at the age of eight in 1966 and remained there for a year and a half, and who it asserts was a reliable witness and showed balance and emotional closure or maturity in the way he described life in the school. Congregations witness
9.178
9.179
9.180
Mary was committed to Clifden when she was two years old, in the late 1940s, and remained there until the mid-1960s. She was part of a group of children known as the specials. These were children who were considered delicate and they were given a special supplementary diet. Every day at 11am, they were taken out of school and given an egg-flip and cod liver oil. As she got older, she was chosen to run errands down in the village. She accepted that at times some children were hungry. For breakfast, they had two slices of buttered bread with tea. At lunchtime, they had potatoes and vegetables. During school term, they had porridge every day at 3pm in the back yard. They had bread with butter and jam for supper. On Sunday, they had bacon and cabbage. They had dessert three times a week. They always used delph and cutlery and never ate with their hands, as was alleged by one complainant. The witness did not accept that children ate food from the pigs buckets as a regular occurrence. Once or twice a year, when nuns were finally professed, the children were given food left over from the visitors: you know, they would bring the food that was left over from all their visitors, we would have to there would be a few people who would have to carry it out, so they would bring it down the walk and they would put it down and we would all go into it. But that was not something that was daily or weekly or thing, absolutely, that's not true.
9.181
9.182
9.183
9.184
She said that they occasionally stole bread from the bakery, but this was more out of devilment than hunger. Sr Gina16 supervised meals, and there was no bullying over food at mealtimes: Clifden was very regimented and everything had to be done in order, because dont forget there was so many of us.
9.185
The building was kept immaculately and fires burned throughout the day. It was very cold at night, however, after the fires went out.
15 16
This is a pseudonym This is a pseudonym.
412
9.186
The Resident Manager always ensured that they were well dressed from head to toe. None of the children went barefoot. They were always made to feel that they were as good as anybody else. The witness described her as harsh, strict and dedicated: Oh, yeah. Roberta had a very authoritarian voice and if she walked up to you she would say, "Hi, how are you." Her voice would cut you. We feared her to a certain extent but yet in our own way if Roberta was sick, we always lined up to go to visit her and she loved the attention that she got from us. She was very strict, don't get me wrong, and she could have been very hard at times but I think anything that she did for the children she did in other words, if she bought stuff, she had to buy the best because she would make sure that anyone in the town couldn't be talking about, "oh, look at how badly they are dressed" or something like that. She always examined things, everything with her was very ritual, the way she did things.
9.187
She said that she did not like a lay worker, Ms Aherne,17 whom a number of other witnesses have described as harsh. She said this worker was so eager to please the Resident Manager that she was unreasonably hard on the children. Mary said she was punished by the nuns, but only when she had done something wrong and never excessively. She was slapped on both hands, if you did wrong it was written down and before you went into your lunch she would call out the names that those were to be lined up for a beating. The beating consisted of being slapped on the hands with a ruler or stick. Only one particular Sister used a cane to hit children. She later elaborated on this theme: Sr Gina was the only one that used the cane. We hated the cane because the cane was much sharper. The sticks werent bad but the cane was fierce. She would have been the only nun that would walk around with the cane.
9.188
9.189
9.190
The witness was asked why Sr Gina would be walking round with a cane when she was not a teacher, and she replied: she was supposed to be in charge of the children ... She left in [the early 1960s] ... we rejoiced over that, that was the best thing that happened.
9.191
Clothes were examined every Monday and if you had a hole in a garment, you were given a week to mend it. If it was not mended, you would be punished. Sr Roberta was feared by the children, and this witness remembered her screaming voice. She said, Her voice would cut you ... when Sr Roberta screamed she kind of like screamed in general, everything she said was a scream. One of the reasons for Sr Robertas habit of screaming was that she was partly deaf. This witness said: In one sense you kind of feared Roberta, there is no doubt about it if someone is screaming at you all the time. But the way we would refer to Mother Roberta was, oh, she was cracked. Shes daft. But she was by no means cracked or daft ... She was like a sergeant major.
9.192
9.193
9.194
She added later: [Roberta] never liked any of the nuns to have any pets. But she had her own, dont get me wrong, she had her own.
17
413
9.195
She summed up the general attitude of the girls to Sr Roberta by saying, we would say, oh, yeah, Roberta was cruel but she was very decent. She added, We always refer to her as being very decent and very kind. She described Sr Robertas deputy, Sr Veronica,18 as more of a nag but she got very excited because Roberta would be always screaming at her, get this and do that and everything else. She was a very nervous individual and always had to have things just right. The relationship between Sr Roberta and the rest of the staff, particularly Sr Veronica her deputy, was always authoritarian. She said: Sr Veronica had to do everything the way that Roberta wanted it. Roberta would scream at her the same way she screamed at the kids. She screamed at all the nuns the same way.
9.196
9.197
9.198
The witness remembered one or two of the staff with affection. She described one of the Sisters who taught her as kind, but she did not have a lot to do with the children. Another Sister who was in charge of the farm was also very nice. One of the Sisters taught music, and those involved in music travelled to different places playing with the band. A handy-man was employed to help around the School, and she described him as a comedian. She said that the worst aspect of living in the School was that there were so many children in it, and it was necessarily very regimented. She felt very alone. Certain categories of children were picked upon by their peers. Those who had family and received packages were seen as better than those who did not. Those from Dublin saw themselves as more elite than those from the Midlands. Children from the Midlands were the lowest of the low, because you were one of Maguires. Mr Maguire19 was the ISPCC Inspector for that area. Travellers were marginalised and she recalled that, when the more impoverished children were brought to the School, they would invariably be filthy and their hair would be crawling with lice. A lay worker was in charge of ensuring that the childrens heads were free from lice. Sr Roberta examined the childrens heads every week. If lice were discovered, a lotion was put in their hair and it was combed with a fine toothcomb. In extreme cases, their heads were shaved. She did not recall the nuns referring to the childrens background, apart from one Sister who made derogatory references about where the children came from. Her recollection was that the nuns were not permitted to show the children any sort of physical affection. No, she said, there was absolutely no affection. She added: If one of nuns put their hands around you and Mother Roberta found that out, forget it, they were in real trouble. There was no such a thing.
9.199
9.200
9.201
9.202
9.203
She described a particular occasion when one nun, Sr Maria,20 took pity on her: I remember one incident where Sr. Maria had us all lined up and she asked us all what we would really she was asking something, you know, about ourselves what we really thought. I know I was at the end of the line and she asked me, I said, "I really want to find my mother." She really took that very, very bad. She went out it really bothered her. At the end, she told me to stay behind and she says, "take anything you want from this press." She says, you know she kind of did it like this, not a thing. But she did give me a hug and she says, "oh", she says, "one day you will and you are a special child of God", and something like that. But now she would make sure that nobody else saw her and that
18 19 20
414
was it. So, no, they were no way affectionate, no way, no how. If you left and you came back a nun would give you a hug. But not while you were in the school, no. 9.204 Similarly, the older girls looking after the younger children would not dare to show their charges affection. She was asked about looking after the babies, if she would have shown affection to a little child of three or four. She replied: Yeah, you might, but it wasn't something you really kind of got yourself really into, that you know. I never saw anyone really cuddling, you know. Maybe a baby trying to keep them quiet or something, but other than that you wouldn't pick a child up ... 9.205 She was often chosen to run errands in the village. She stated that Sr Roberta tried to take this job away from her several times, but she had struck up a good relationship with the towns people and, at her request, they would write to the Resident Manager asking her to make sure that she would be the one coming for the messages. She believed that the Resident Manager had to keep in with the towns people and so would do what they said. She added: she kind of resented me for that, she would say, you old pet, get out of my sight, you old pet. 9.206 The witness described the education she received as standard. Everyone could read and write by the time they left the Institution. Those with learning difficulties went to one particular nun for extra tuition. She taught everything by rote. They did not receive any formal sex education and learned about the changes during puberty from each other. Birthdays were always celebrated and the children received gifts of sweets, fruit and a comb and ribbons for their hair. They also had toast the morning of their birthday. Christmas was also celebrated. She recalled regular visits from the local doctor and the Department Inspectors. When the inspector was en route from Lenaboy, the School would receive a message alerting them to the fact that she was on the way. She did not accept that bed linen and clothes were changed for the purpose of these visits. The children had to make sure that they were clean but, otherwise, very little had to be done in preparation for the visit, as the School was always in good order. She did not have any contact with her family while in the Institution. She stated that the nuns did not know anything about the childrens background. Before allowing children home to their families on holidays, Sr Roberta would conduct inquiries to ensure that the home environment was in no way irregular. If children wished to trace their relatives after leaving the Institution, Sr Roberta supplied the address at which a copy of your birth certificate could be obtained. This witness was kept on in the Institution for a year and a half after her 16th birthday. It was not her choice and she had wanted to leave, but it was Sr Roberta who decided when each child could go. She was on night duty for three years before she was permitted to leave. She never received any payment for the work done in the Institution after her official discharge date. Her first job after leaving the Institution was as a cleaning lady in a Dublin hospital. Sr Roberta organised this job. She said the Resident Manager would try to assist any former resident who ran into difficulty after they left Clifden. In the late 1960s, the witness moved abroad to where her mother lived. She has always kept in contact with the nuns and feels more of a familial bond with them than with the family she discovered outside the country. She is married with children and has never gone into detail with her children about her upbringing. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 415
9.207
9.208
9.209
9.210
9.211
9.212
9.213
The witness has kept in contact with a number of former residents, some of whom have made efforts to induce her to submit a claim to the Redress Board alleging abuse. She did not believe, however, that her experience of Clifden was abusive. She made contact with her mother after she left Clifden and felt that her mother considered her an intrusion into her life. That was, for her, a much greater hurt and betrayal than anything that had happened to her in Clifden. Complainant whose evidence the Congregation regarded as reliable
9.214
The Sisters of Mercy described this witness, who was in Clifden for just over a year in the 1960s, as essentially a reliable witness. The complainant was born in the late 1950s in the Midlands. He had previously been in a residential institution in Lenaboy, County Galway and had very happy memories of his time there. He recalled spending some time at home after being discharged from Lenaboy. He had always had enough to eat but recalled his mother crying a lot. When she told her children that she had to go away for a while because she was ill, he stated, we took it we were going back to Lenaboy because we liked Lenaboy, Lenaboy was very good. We were actually looking forward to it, believe it or not, it was going to be a bit of a holiday but it wasnt you know. Instead, he found himself in Clifden. He found Clifden a very different environment: I was cold, I was hungry, I was lonely, you know, miserable ... I thought it was a cruel regime, thats the way I would have looked at it now, very cruel. He recalled being barefoot for what felt like a year. They were given footwear but it would go missing. He remembered his feet being cold and having a boil on his foot. It was generally the boys who were barefoot. He recalled another boy who was stronger and faster than the rest: It was the law of the jungle, and he would rush down in the morning and steal food from the other childrens plates. He blamed the system which allowed this type of bullying to take place rather than the culprit who, he accepted, was also hungry. The food was not bad; there was just never enough of it. He was always hungry. They had bread with jam and a cup of tea in the morning, if another child did not get to it first. There was a bakery in the School and he remembered the smell of freshly baked bread coming from it. The children used to sneak in and steal bread from the bakery. He said that they did not receive any toys at Christmas, although the Christmas dinner was very good and in particular the plum pudding. The School put on a play each Christmas which was regarded as a big event. If you misbehaved, you were excluded from participating in the play. Amongst his chores was mopping up urine in the dormitories after children had wet the bed at night-time. His brother would clean any faeces from the beds. He recalled sleeping on rubber sheets, and bed linen only being provided when the Departmental inspections were due to take place. In general, there were no sheets or pillows on any of the boys beds, only a rubber mattress. The boys slept two to a bed. The witness said that one of the ISPCC inspectors forewarned the nuns of the fact that a Departmental Inspection was imminent. The witness described the change in regime when the inspector visited: The thing about it is what I used to remark was that when the inspectors would come, and the inspectors did come, that everything would improve for that time that they would be there. Dinners would be good, sheets on the beds, pillows, you know.
9.215
9.216
9.217
9.218
9.219
9.220
9.221
9.222
He went on to say, You would be kind of bulling that the inspectors had left because the good times were over. 416 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
9.223
He was never permitted to go home on holidays. His mother sometimes came to visit, if she could get a lift, but she was never allowed in. She had to sneak in the back entrance to visit her children and, when the nuns discovered the fact that she was there, she would run away. He stated that he learnt little at school because he was taught through Irish. He could not keep up with the class because he had a poor aptitude for languages. He received extra tuition from one particular Sister, Sr Magda,21 who showed him great kindness. She also gave him treats of bread with butter and sugar. Regarding nuns who lived in the convent, he said, The nuns lived in a different area of the School and there was a lot of nuns that you wouldnt get to meet. He described the Resident Managers deputy, Sr Veronica, as ... a tyrant. Very very cruel, very tough. Very very tough...She would be the one if there was any corporal punishment she would be the one to dish it out and Sr Roberta as well. He could not remember being beaten by any other nuns other than this particular Sister and the Resident Manager. He remarked that, in hindsight, the corporal punishment administered in Clifden was probably no more severe than that administered in other schools at the time. He said: Well, when you are being punished, it is like everything else, you will always take it that no one has ever been punished as hard as you, it is human nature... . The corporal punishment, when you look back on it now, probably was no different than other schools. It was just the hunger and the cold.
9.224
9.225
9.226
9.227
He was transferred to the Christian Brothers Industrial School in Salthill in the late 1960s. He was fed and treated better in Salthill. He recalled: as tough and all as Salthill was we got well fed and treated that good bit better really in Salthill ... There was a difference, believe it or not, between Clifden and Salthill. A good difference, a major difference.
9.228
Of the three institutions he spent time in, Clifden was the toughest, mainly because of the cold and hunger. In particular, he recalled being treated with kindness in Lenaboy: But all I can remember from [there] was the kindness. They were very, very kind to us ... The kindness, they were very, very kind [there]. When we were being taken out of [there] to go home I actually missed it.
9.229
He did not accept that his experience in Clifden had impacted adversely upon his life in any great way: Things like that you just try to bury it, bury it in the back of your mind and go forward you know. He is now a tradesman and is married with children. Among the points emerging from these witnesses are:
9.230
Both spoke of the inadequacy of the diet in terms of quality and quantity and both spoke of being hungry. Although one witness said that there was no bullying at meal times, the other was quite clear that this did occur and it meant that smaller, weaker children went without. Both described a different member of the religious staff as being cruel, as well as a lay worker, and one of these witnesses identified the regime as harsh and cruel. In particular, the positive witnesss description of the Resident Manager was indicative of a person unsuited to caring for children. One of the witnesses said that the Sisters were prohibited from any display of physical affection, which she identified as a hardship for the nuns themselves.
21
417
Moreover, she learnt from the nuns to keep a distance and not cuddle the younger children placed in her care. There can be no doubt that the constant rejection of very vulnerable children instinctively seeking this kind of reassurance and affection would have had an extremely damaging effect on them. It seems extraordinary that a Congregation of nuns who had been engaged in childcare for over 100 years would have continued this attitude towards the children in their care when they must have seen the damage it was doing. It would seem that the observance of the discipline of the Congregation was given priority over the interests of the children. The banishment of the expression of affection may have made the Sisters appear to be acting fairly, by making them treat all children in the same way, but it also made them detached and distant, and at worst cold and cruel.
Both witnesses confirmed what a number of complainants have said about this and other institutions, that the authorities were warned when an Inspector from the Department of Education was coming, and clothes, bedding and food were improved for the occasion. These two witnesses differed as to the amount of preparation that was made, but it is clear that the preparations ensured that the inspectors did not get an accurate picture of the Institution during these inspections. The positive witness, Mary in particular spoke of there being elite groups, as well as marginalised children such as Travellers. She recalled that the Resident Manager had pets. Religious and lay staff members denigrated the childrens background. These facts indicate that, whilst, for some, Clifden may not have been a bad place to be, for others it was harsh and abusive. The positive witness was detained for 18 months after her discharge date, to go on working in the Institution. She said that she did not want to stay and asked to be let out, but she was clearly a reliable and responsible young person and was detained at the will of the Resident Manager. Although this witness does not make a complaint about being kept on, it was clear exploitation and a failure to consider the best interests of the child. One of these witnesses was introduced by the Congregation as a positive witness. She balanced her criticisms of the regime by testifying that the good the Sisters did outweighed their shortcomings, but her evidence nevertheless contained quite severe criticisms and acquires increased importance because she was advanced by the Congregation as a positive witness.
General conclusions
9.231 1. Clifden was isolated and inaccessible for an industrial school. Contact with families was nearly impossible because of its location. Many children came from distant parts of the country, contrary to an important Cussen Report recommendation that children be sent to schools near their families. 2. Sr Roberta was Resident Manager for 27 years and established a strict, authoritarian and cold regime unsuitable for caring for children. During her administration, the School was also very understaffed. 3. Corporal punishment was over-used as a first option for enforcing discipline and was not restricted to cases of serious misbehaviour. 4. Children were institutionalised by the time they left, particularly those who were committed from a young age. They had no concept of normal family life. They were not shown love or affection by the nuns, and only had contact with the Sisters who worked in the convent (and Scoil Mhuire after 1969). The Sisters in the convent made 418 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
an appearance once a year at the Christmas concert, but they were discouraged from having any other contact with the children who lived only yards away. 5. Mr Graham Granville noted as late as the 1970s that the children had very few visible reminders of home such as family photographs, which added to the isolation and lack of identity that they felt after leaving the Institution. 6. The Congregation accepts that the nuns vows dictated that they led a regimented lifestyle, which was reflected in the strictly controlled manner in which the children were brought up and in the absence of any demonstration of affection by the nuns. 7. The standard of education was low and there was little emphasis on academic achievement, which reflected the low aspirations the Sisters had for the children as regards future careers. 8. The children were poorly prepared for leaving the Institution and there were no aspirations for them beyond careers in domestic service. There was no preparation for departure. Many of the children had no idea what lay ahead when they were sent off to jobs in towns and cities.
419
Appendix 1
Report by Mr Ciaran Fahy (19th January 2006)
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this report is to describe the physical surroundings of St Josephs Industrial School, Clifden with particular reference to the buildings. It is based on research carried out by Mr Ciaran Fahy during the course of which all of the relevant documentation in the possession of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was examined. On 12th September 2005, Mr Fahy visited the Industrial School in Clifden in the company of the Senior Executive Engineer with Galway County Council to examine the Industrial School building and also to meet with the Manager of the nearby Elmtree Centre. Subsequent to this, there was a meeting with one of the Sisters (who had taught in the school in the mid-1960s) at the Sisters of Mercy premises in Galway. This report is to be read in conjunction with drawings and photographs as follows: Drawings Two drawings provided by the Sisters of Mercy were prepared by Scott Tallon Walker, Architects for the Sisters in 2001, and shows a site map and a ground floor plan. The 4 photographs were similarly provided.
2.0 Background
2.1 Location
St Josephs Industrial School, Clifden was certified in July 1872 and was closed down in 1984. It was located at the north eastern edge of Clifden due north of the road from Galway and the train station. It was located on higher ground with the front elevation of the building facing due south over the town. In drawing 1, the small building slightly forward of the Industrial School and to the right of it is the laundry which apparently was built about the same time. It should be noted there is a hospital further to the east of the Industrial School and obviously this was not in position in 1898.
2.2 Foundation
There is some uncertainty about when exactly the Industrial School was built. The County Council who now have possession of the building had a report prepared by the National Building Agency in June 2005. This report suggests the Industrial School was purpose built in 1870, opened in 1871 and certified in July 1872. This report then goes on to say: an increase in the number of children attending the school required an increase in the size of the building. In 1881 the Industrial School building was extended to the west creating an additional wing on the side of the building. Some details have also been provided by the Sisters of Mercy which show they moved to Clifden from Galway when invited to do so by the local parish priest and established a convent on 16th July 1855. It appears that in about 1859, the Sisters became involved in caring for orphaned 420 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
Catholic children using a premises rented from the Franciscan Brothers. The details from the Sisters of Mercy suggest that the Industrial School was constructed in 1862 near the convent and apparently was built on eight acres (about 3 hectares) of land.
2.3 Subsequent History

It is clear that subsequent to its initial construction, the Industrial School in Clifden was extended on a number of occasions. The NBA Report says that St Josephs Roman Catholic Church alongside it was built in 1879 and the spire was added in 1898. This report concludes that the laundry was built as part of the initial construction and as regards the Industrial School itself, it suggests extensions were carried out as follows: 1871 the building was extended to the west towards the convent or the Church. Some time after 1898 the building was extended to the east apparently adding five bays, apparently in an attempt to restore the original symmetry by matching the two central projecting bays. About 1932, it is believed that further modifications were made since there is reference in the Irish Builder of July 1932 to an Invitation to Tender for alterations and additions, including a new wing, bake house, etc. The NBA believe that the windows in the western and probably the eastern end of the building were altered at that time and it also appears that four classrooms were incorporated in the building. The information from the Sisters of Mercy suggests that additions and alterations were carried out as follows: 1873, it seems an additional wing was built together with baths and water closets and a new boundary was erected at a total cost of 3,588. 1880, a new school room and dormitory was provided at a cost of 528. 1886, it appears the limit of the school was increased to 80 and about that time there were new additions consisting of a kitchen, pantry, dairy, lavatory and infirmary. The Sisters of Mercy suggest that this was the last significant extension to the school. 1911, apparently the school rooms and dormitories at that time were heated by hot water pipes and open fireplaces. It is not known if this simply is a recording of fact or whether this was work carried out at that time. 1933, four classrooms were built. Details from the Sisters of Mercy suggest that the school was originally certified in 1872 for 25 pupils and this was increased to 80 in 1886. This limit was further extended to 100 in 1832, 120 in 1944 and 140 in 1960. Details from the Sisters of Mercy suggest that the numbers of children in the school ranged between 100 and 127 between 1935 and 1965 increasing in line with the certified limit. The Sisters of Mercy were based in the convent alongside the Industrial School and in addition to this they were also involved in running the girls primary school, apparently located behind the convent further up the hill. They also ran a girls secondary school and the hospital which is located to the east of the Industrial School. It appears they operated a farm close to the Industrial School with the farmyard located just to the east of the Industrial School and the laundry. There is little or no information in relation to this and it is suggested that the farm extended to approximately 12 hectares (about 30 acres) and it apparently closed down in 1969. It appears the Sisters of Mercy ran a commercial laundry in this building alongside the Industrial School but this apparently had ceased as a commercial laundry by 1940 and subsequent to this, it was used only for the Industrial School and also for the nuns in the convent. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 421
The Industrial School closed in 1984. It appears the building was disused for a number of years before a portion of it was used as a Day Centre by the Clifden Support Centre. The convent itself closed on 5th July 2001. Subsequent to this that building was extensively extended to the rear and is now used as a home for the elderly.
3.0 Details
3.1 General
The site is shown in the Scott Tallon Walker drawing based on a survey carried out in October 2001, just after the convent closed. The first of the drawings show the site generally at a scale of 1:200, while the later drawings shows the ground floor at a scale of 1:100. The drawings have obviously been reduced for incorporating in this report and as such while they are to scale they are no longer to the scale referred to on the drawings. The first drawing shows the location of the convent together with the Industrial School and the laundry located just to the right of it. Broadly speaking, the Industrial School is rectangular in shape incorporating four projections on the southern facade while at the rear, there is a small courtyard enclosed towards the right hand side of the drawing.
3.2 Farm
Little or no information is available as regards the farm associated with the Industrial School. During the meeting with the Sister who had taught in the school, she said she felt the farm was approximately 30 acres. She said the nuns had a supply of milk, butter and eggs from the farm and in addition they kept pigs and turkeys. There was also a glasshouse for tomatoes located behind or to the north of the convent and equally, there was a farmyard located to the east of the laundry which is now occupied by the Western Health Board as shown in the Scott Tallon Walker layout drawing. She indicated that the farm closed in 1969.
3.3 Main Building

The building is a two storey although there was a small basement at the eastern end which in later years at least contained a boiler. Broadly speaking, the dormitories and sleeping accommodation together with bathrooms were located at first floor level. The ground floor contained the classrooms, recreation area, dining and cooking facilities. Finally, it should be noted that there was a single storey bakery located to the right rear at the main block as shown in the Scott Tallon Walker drawing no. 2, thus forming a small enclosed courtyard at the eastern end of the building. The first floor of the building contained five dormitories together with two main bathrooms, an infirmary as well as some other bedrooms and stores. In addition, a 1944 drawing shows the nuns bedroom immediately behind the Sacred Heart dormitory as the Resident Managers bedroom. The two guest bedrooms shown in front of the bakery behind Our Lady of Lourdes dormitory were apparently used by staff as well as visitors calling to the school. The details provided in 1944 refer to the first floor containing five dormitories together with the infirmary and four staff bedrooms. In each case the height of the dormitories was 4.6m and they all had electric light and central heating. Details of the individual dormitories are given below:
St Catherines St Annes 14.0 x 6.2m 10.5 x 6.2m 39 children 21 children
422
St Josephs Sacred Heart Lady of Lourdes Infirmary
10.5 x 6.2m 11.5 x 6.3m 7.8 x 5.9m 8.1 x 4.3m
20 20 14 12
children children children children
The 1944 details also speak of the lavatories or bathrooms on the first floor and identify these as black and white. Black is described as having 70 wash hand basins and one slop hopper while the white bathroom was fitted with 44 wash hand basins and one slop hopper. The 1944 report also speaks of a bath, two WCs and one wash hand basin for the staff on the upper floor. There appear to have been no toilet facilities for the girls on the first floor although, there is reference to a range of six toilets at ground floor with a further nine toilets being located outside the school some 20 to 25m from it. The ground floor layout is shown in the Scott Tallon Walker drawing no. 2 with the use of individual rooms marked in. The drawing clearly shows the arrangement of the bakery at the north eastern corner of the building thus forming a small internal courtyard. The 1944 details describe four classrooms on this level together with a sewing room, a dining hall, kitchens, pantries, bathroom, storerooms and a nursery. Six WCs at the ground floor level, presumably for the use of the children while there is also reference to a bathroom containing three baths and one wash hand basin. The position of the two kitchens is shown in the Scott Tallon Walker drawing towards the rear of the building. To the left of this is what is described as the domestic economy room, which was also a kitchen but was used more for the teaching of cooking and each of these two kitchens was provided with a range, while there were obviously pantry and scullery facilities alongside them. The location of the bakery is unchanged from 1944 and is as shown in the Scott Tallon Walker drawing. To the left of this, what is shown as the cloakroom appears to have been the bathroom with the three baths located there. The boot store beside these is shown in some of the other details as a flour store but it is also described as a wardrobe room. The four classrooms were at the eastern end of the building with three of these being marked as such in the Scott Tallon Walker drawing. The remedial room appears also to have served as an office and for storage to some extent with three main classrooms being towards the front of the building. The purpose of the room shown as the recreational hall is not entirely clear. On the 1944 sketch it seems to be shown as a sewing room and this would be consistent with some dimensions given at that time. The nursery appears to have been located at the north western corner of the building where the sitting room is shown on the Scott Tallon Walker drawing. Equally, the dining room seems to have been located towards the front of the building just to one side of the entrance hallway and the 2001 partition appears to have been simply added after the school was closed. There appears to have been a second dining room on the front corner of the building to the left of this. Some dimensions were provided in 1944 as set out below: Classroom No 1 (nearest to the recreational hall) 6.4m x 5.9m x 3.7m high. 35 pupils. Classroom No 2 (on the other side of the accordion partition) 6.4m x 5.6m x 3.7m high. 30 pupils. Classroom No 3 (corner room) 7.8m x 5.9m x 3.7m high. 35 pupils. Classroom No 4 (remedial room) 6.1m x 3.4m x 3.0m high. 20 pupils. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 423
Nursery 6.1m x 6.1m x 4.0m high. There is a note to the effect 20 infants usually occupy this room. Sewing Room 7.5m x 6.2m x 3.7m high. The room apparently accommodated 40 children. Recreational Hall 44.6m x 4.1m x 4.6m high. This is described as being capable of being used by 120 children at one time. The main entrance into the building appears to have been at the projection on the front of the building shown in the centre of photograph no. 1 of the 2001 photographs taken by Scott Tallon Walker. This led directly to the main stairs serving ground and first floor level and the ground floor level is shown in photographs 38, 39 and 42. To the left of this the dining room is shown in photographs 33 and 35 and the partition in this room shown in photograph no. 33 seems to have been a later addition after the school was closed. The dining room at the corner is shown in photographs 34 and 37 with the first of these showing an internal porch at the entrance into the building nearest the convent. Photograph no. 36 was taken in the nursery behind, while photographs 57 and 59 were taken in the storeroom and utility room on the Scott Tallon Walker drawing. It appears that these were used at certain points as a pantry and also as an office. Photograph 54, apparently was taken in the kitchen used to teach domestic economy and shows the position of the range while photograph no. 60, was taken in the other kitchen and shows the corresponding range. Photograph 58 was also taken within the same kitchen area while photographs 50 and 51 were taken in the scullery behind it. Photographs 52 and 53 were taken in what is described as a cloakroom but which also served as a bathroom, while photograph no. 49 was taken outside the boot room and photographs 47 and 48 show the stairs nearby which obviously provided secondary access between the first and ground floor. Photographs 23, 24 and 25 were taken within the courtyard while photograph no. 27 shows the bakery taken from the courtyard. Photograph no. 44 was taken within the corner classroom, while photograph no. 41 was taken in the double classroom alongside looking into the recreational hall. Finally, photographs 43, 45 and 46 were all taken within the recreational hall.
3.4 Laundry
The laundry is shown in the recent photographs nos. 3, 15 and 16 and is positioned generally alongside the main building and shown in the Scott Tallon Walker drawing no. 1. It is broadly rectangular in shape and two storey. The stairs within the building have been removed and it is now only used for storage but there is still some old laundry equipment within the building and structurally it appears to be in reasonable condition.
3.5 Services
There seems to have been a form of central heating in the school going back to 1911 and in 1944, it is clear the building was provided with central heating and electric light throughout. The central heating was fired using turf and coke and in winter it operated from 6.30 a.m. until 9.00 p.m. It appears each room was also fitted with a fireplace but fires were only lit in the kitchens and the sewing room at ground floor level.
424
2001 Drawing 1
2001 Drawing 2
425
2001 Photographs
426
427
428
Chapter 10
Our Lady of Succour Industrial School, Newtownforbes (Newtownforbes), 18691969
Introduction
10.01 Newtownforbes was chosen as the first module for investigation by the Committee because, at that time, there were just six complaints made against the School. The scheduling of the hearings was halted, however, by the review process in 2003. Much of the evidence had already been gathered, and discovery directions had been issued to the Department of Education and Science, the Sisters of Mercy, the Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise and three of the complainant witnesses in 2002. Two procedural hearings took place in 2002 regarding variation of the discovery directions issued to the Department of Education and Science and the Sisters of Mercy respectively. The first procedural hearing was at the instigation of the Sisters of Mercy and was held in private on 14th November 2002. The second procedural hearing was at the instigation of the Department of Education and it also took place in private on 6th December 2002. Five complainants were heard by the Investigation Committee.
10.02
Background
10.03 Newtownforbes was certified as an industrial school for girls in 1869. The Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy managed the School from that date until its closure in 1969. As with all other industrial schools, Newtownforbes was regulated by the Department of Education. The establishment of the Industrial School in Newtownforbes was brought about by the then local landlord, Lord Granard, and the Sisters of Mercy from the convent in Longford. In 1869, Lord Granard invited the Sisters of Mercy to establish an orphanage for abandoned children and a school to educate the poor of the town. To this end, he obtained the certification for the Industrial School from the Department of Education on 29th November 1869, one month in advance of the Sisters of Mercy arriving there. Three Sisters from the convent in Longford were sent to Newtownforbes under the direction of the then Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise, Dr McCabe. They arrived on 13th December 1869. Lord Granard provided the Sisters with a vacant house and gardens rent-free, in addition to an annual cash donation of 90. The Sisters established St. Michaels Convent in the house provided by Lord Granard, and this convent became autonomous from the Longford Convent in 1871. The Sisters then embarked on a large building project, which by 1879 consisted of the Industrial School, a day school, a laundry and dormitories on the grounds. These buildings were added to over the years. In 1904, an 11acre farm was acquired by the Sisters in Newtownforbes across the road from the convent on the main Dublin to Sligo road. A bakery was also in operation on the grounds. In 1913, a further 155 acres were obtained through the Land Commission in the adjoining townland of Carrickmoyragh CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 429
10.04
10.05
which was beside the convent. Also, in 1913, the laundry was expanded and new machinery was installed. 10.06 Until 1942, the Industrial School had its own internal primary school. However, in 1942, the internal primary school was closed and the industrial school children from then on attended the external primary school, which was also run by the Newtownforbes Sisters. This change was made presumably in response to the Cussen Report recommendations. In 1951, a secondary school was established at Newtownforbes, which also became a boarding school. When the Industrial School closed in 1969, the boarding school took over parts of the building.
10.07
Numbers
10.08 In 1869, the School was certified for the reception of 145 girls, but with accommodation provision for 240. The School received children committed by the courts, children placed by local authorities under the Public Assistance Acts, and later the Health Acts, and it also accepted voluntary admissions. The number of children in residence in the School fluctuated from year to year. Over the period 1940 to 1969, approximately 320 children passed through the School. The highest number of girls recorded in the School during the period under consideration was in 1948, when there were 175 girls in total in the School, of whom 159 were committed through the courts, nine placed under the Public Assistance Acts, and the remaining seven were voluntary admissions. After 1948, the numbers in the School began to steadily decline. In 1953, there were 126 girls in total in the School, of whom 101 were court committals, 18 were placed under the Public Assistance Acts, and seven were voluntary admissions. This number dropped to 94 in 1955, which consisted of 73 court committals, 14 Public Assistance cases and seven voluntary admissions. Then, in 1958, the numbers further dropped to 68 in total, which consisted of 47 court committals, 14 Public Assistance cases and seven voluntary admissions. By 1969, when the School closed, there were only five pupils resident in the School. The decline in numbers was of major concern to the Resident Manager of Newtownforbes in the 1950s and 1960s. It became such a concern to her that she sought to increase the numbers by having young boys admitted to the School. In 1956, the Resident Manager wrote to the Department of Education seeking permission for the acceptance of boys under eight years of age. The Department Inspector had indicated that this would not be possible as there were already schools for young boys which were not full. The majority of children who were sent to Newtownforbes came from Dublin, and in fact 60 percent of them were committed through the Childrens Court in Dublin. The main reasons for the committal of these children included poverty, death of a parent, or being an illegitimate child. Poverty, in short, was the overriding reason for many of the admissions to the School.
10.09
10.10
10.11
Closure
10.12 The Industrial School closed on 31st August 1969. The Resident Manager, Sr Lucia,1 wrote to the Department of Education on 27th August 1969 informing them of their intention to close the School at the end of the month. However, she had forgotten to provide the requisite six months notice of intention to resign the certificate for the School, as required by section 48 of the Children Act, 1908. The Department therefore took the letter of 27th August 1969 as notification of resignation of the certificate of the School, the expiration of which took effect on 26th February 1970.
1
430
10.13
The Resident Manager wrote to the Department on 19th September 1969, apologising for overlooking the requirement of six months notice. In this letter, she pointed out that they had no option but to close the School because of the decline in numbers: May I mention we very much regret having to close down Our Lady of Succour School. It has been our principal work for almost 100 years, now, and the work we dearly loved, but with the great fall in numbers we were forced to do something about it. Now the whole building is fully occupied as secondary school classrooms.
10.14
At the time of closing, there were five pupils resident in the School. The two youngest girls were transferred to Moate Industrial School, and two others were returned to their respective fathers. The fifth girl was retained until the expiration of her committal term, with a view to sending her to nursing school in England. The buildings which housed the Industrial School were subsequently subsumed by the secondary boarding school. The boarding school closed in 1987 and the property was sold in 1990. In that same year, the laundry was demolished and, by 1999, the convent and its grounds were sold and apartments were subsequently built on the site.
10.15
Finance
10.16 As Newtownforbes operated as an independent unit, it was responsible for its own financing and administration. The main source of income for the Industrial School was the capitation grants from the Department of Education. The Sisters of Mercy stated that their financial records showed that the School operated within a range of 5 percent of the money provided by the capitation grant. Another source of income for the Community was the laundry, which was a public laundry. The farm only provided limited income because of its small size. It did not even enable the School to be self-sufficient in milk, butter and vegetables. The boarding school also provided income to the Community and this amount increased over the years. There is no direct evidence to show how much the industrial school contributed financially to the Community in Newtownforbes. It is clear, however, that the reduction in numbers in the Industrial School, from the late 1950s onwards, made the School uneconomical. The capitation system of funding was based on numbers in the Institution and when numbers fell, income dropped. The Resident Managers Association consistently looked for increased capitation allowances when, in fact, that would have had limited impact on small schools such as Newtownforbes that had dramatic reductions in numbers.
10.17
Sources of information
10.18 Contemporaneous documentation for the time period under review was furnished from the following sources:

10.19
the Department of Education and Science; the Sisters of Mercy; the Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise; and the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
Garda statements, which were not available at the time of the hearings, were furnished in March 2005. The hearings were concluded in January 2005. The Sisters of Mercy have little or no surviving administrative or management documentation in respect of Newtownforbes. Most of the surviving documentation furnished to the Investigation Committee by the Sisters of Mercy consisted of individual pupil files and medical reports. However, a set of documents entitled Report on School Activities which covered the period 1938 to 1958 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 431
10.20
were furnished by the Sisters, and they provide additional information regarding the Industrial School. These reports were submitted annually to the Department of Education. The Sisters of Mercy also commissioned Dr Moira Maguire and Professor Seamus O Cinneide to prepare a report on Newtownforbes, which was furnished to the Committee. 10.21 Oral testimony was available from five witnesses who had made complaints to the Investigation Committee about the Institution. Two respondent witnesses gave evidence to the Investigation Committee. They had worked in the Industrial School and the primary school respectively during the time period under review. The Provincial of the Western Province, which now includes Newtownforbes, gave general evidence in respect of the School. In addition, a number of witness statements from various members of the Sisters of Mercy who had worked in Newtownforbes during the time period were provided to the Investigation Committee. These persons were not named as respondents. They had worked primarily in the primary school but had had some contact with the Industrial School over the years in terms of supervision. A total of 13 such witness statements were furnished.
The witnesses
10.22 Originally, six complainant witnesses had lodged complaints to the Investigation Committee against Newtownforbes. At the time of the hearings, this number had fallen to five. Their combined periods of residence spanned from 1939 to 1965. Most of these witnesses spent their entire childhood in the School. Three respondent witnesses had been due to give evidence to the Committee, but one was unable to do so because of illness. The two witnesses who did give evidence had spent long periods of time working in Newtownforbes. These witnesses were aged 84 and 85 years respectively at the time of the hearings. One of these witnesses, Sr Francesca2, had worked exclusively in the Industrial School from 1946 to 1963. The other witness, Sr Elena3, had taught in the primary school from 1947 to 1963 and had no direct contact with the Industrial School itself. Sr Margaret Casey, the Provincial of the Western Province of the Sisters of Mercy, gave evidence at the Phase I and Phase III public hearings in respect of Newtownforbes. As a child, she and her family lived directly across the road from the Industrial School at Newtownforbes, and they were therefore familiar with the children who attended there. In addition, she attended the same primary school as the industrial school children.
10.23
10.24
Management structure
10.25 The convent in Newtownforbes was an autonomous unit from 1871 to 1979. The nuns who worked in Newtownforbes were entirely responsible for the management, financing and administration of the School. In particular, the Resident Manager and the Sisters who worked in the School were appointed from the Newtownforbes convent, and no other source of staffing was available. In 1979, there were six such independent Sisters of Mercy convents in operation in the diocese of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise. These six convents were subsumed into a single diocesan unit with a revised governance structure in 1979. This occurred with all the Sisters of Mercy convents that were in operation in all the dioceses throughout the country. In 1994, the 26 independent diocesan units in the country merged to become a single Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy, which is in existence to the present day. Within this organisation structure, there is one Congregational Leadership and a Provincial Leadership Team for each of the four Provinces in the State.
2 3
10.26
432
Numbers in the convent

10.27 The Superior of the convent at Newtownforbes was also the Resident Manager of the Industrial School. One Resident Managers period in office spanned 22 consecutive years, from 1947 until the closure of the School in 1969. All of the Resident Managers for the time period under review are deceased. A total of 30 nuns were in the convent but, at any given time, approximately five or six of them were of retirement age and unavailable for work. The number of nuns who worked in the Industrial School ranged from five, in 1935, to nine in the period from 1945 to 1955. The remaining nuns were involved in teaching in the primary and the secondary schools and working in the bakery, the public laundry and on the farm. Each nun who worked in the Industrial School had a designated role, such as looking after the babies, working in the kitchen and other duties. Only two Sisters worked full-time in the Industrial School from the mid-1940s to the 1960s, and they were responsible for the day-to-day care of the children. One of them was involved in the general running of the Industrial School, and the other was primarily concerned with the provision of clothing. These two nuns slept in the Industrial School itself. No records exist as to the number of lay staff who worked in the Industrial School. The 1966 General Inspection report of the Medical Inspector, Dr Lysaght, who reported to the Department of Education, noted no lay helpers in this school. At the Phase I public hearing, Sr Margaret Casey acknowledged that they had very little information on the number of lay staff, but said there appeared to have been at least one or two. She also acknowledged that, at different intervals, some former pupils remained on as lay staff and assisted the nuns in the Industrial School.
10.28
10.29
10.30
Ethos and organisation

10.31 A former nun, Sr Elena, who had taught in the primary school for a period of approximately 16 years, provided useful information on the workings of the Community and the interaction between the Reverend Mother and the Sisters: ... We ... had no say in anything in the Community. It was ruled, it was governed from the top, just a select few thats all. 10.32 The upper echelon of the Community, she said, consisted of four nuns: the Reverend Mother, the Mother Assistant, the Bursar and the Novice Mistress. She referred to them as the elite. These four nuns, it seems, governed the workings of the entire Community of the Sisters of Mercy at Newtownforbes. The remaining Sisters outside this inner circle had no voice or authority regarding the operation of their Community. Sr Elena described the role played by the remaining Sisters as: you followed blindly and dumbly. In effect, the organisational structure operating at Newtownforbes was a two-tier system, with the Reverend Mother and three other nuns at the top, and the remaining nuns at the base. As Sr Elena stated, You had the elite and you had the everyday folk. She became disillusioned with this system and eventually left the Sisters of Mercy in 1973. The ethos of the Sisters of Mercy lent itself to the creation of this two-tier system. One of the essential rules of the Sisters of Mercy was the vow of obedience. In particular, Rule 28 of the 1926 Constitution, which is replicated in Chapter 7 of the 1954 Constitution, states: The Sisters are always to bear in mind that by the vow of obedience they have forever renounced their own will and resigned it to the direction of their Superiors. They are to obey the Mother Superior as holding her authority from God rather through love than from CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 433
10.33
10.34 10.35
servile fear. They shall love and respect her as their mother, without her permission they shall not perform public penances. 10.36 Rule 29 of the 1926 Constitution takes this a step further and states: They are to execute without hesitation all the directions of the Mother Superior, whether in matters of great or little moment agreeable or disagreeable. They shall never murmur but with humility and spiritual joy carry the sweet yoke of Jesus Christ. 10.37 This rule meant each Sister was expected to follow unquestioningly the will of the Reverend Mother. In particular, it hindered her ability to question the system or to suggest improvements if she disagreed with certain aspects of the management and administration of the School. At the Phase III public hearing, Sr Casey was questioned on the impact that the vow of obedience had on a Sisters ability to question her Superior on how a school such as Newtownforbes was being run. Sr Casey conceded that it was not the done thing to question authority at that time. She said: But it would have been true, as well, that out of the obedience that it wouldnt have been the accepted or the norm for somebody to complain to the person in authority about how the place was being run, because to do so would have been seen not merely as a kind of personal failing but it would also have shown that in some way that their inability to cope with the challenges of religious life. 10.38 Another consequence of this two-tier system was that background information on a child, when she was admitted, was not passed down the line to the Sisters working in the School. The theory behind this policy was that all children would be treated equally if personal details were not known, but it meant that children who came from particularly tragic or traumatic backgrounds received no special care or attention. This one size fits all approach was not appropriate for meeting the emotional needs of children in care.
Physical abuse
Attitude of Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy
10.39 The Sisters of Mercy in their Opening Statement and in evidence at the Investigation Committee Phase I public hearing conceded that corporal punishment was a feature of industrial school life. They also acknowledged that: Slapping was the principal form of punishment administered with a cane or a stick by the sister in charge or on duty or in more extreme cases by the Resident Manager. 10.40 Furthermore, it was accepted that most children would have experienced corporal punishment at some time during their time in the industrial school. This, they conceded would undoubtedly have had a traumatic effect on the children. The Provincial of the Western Province of the Sisters of Mercy, Sr Casey, who gave evidence at the Phase I public hearing, also conceded that the regime in Newtownforbes was harsh and did not take into account the individual needs of the children. She said: We also accept that some of the children who experienced this regime, not merely as harsh and impersonal, but that they experienced it as abusive and humiliating. We are deeply sorry that this is the situation and we would like to add our and share in the public apology already made earlier this year by our Congregation leader ... to the children who were in our industrial school and who are now adults if what they experienced was this. 10.41 Punishment could be administered by any member of staff and was not confined to the Resident Manager alone. Sr Casey said: 434 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
Corporal punishment was a feature of the life in the Industrial School, and the primary school, I suppose, as well. Slapping with the cane or a stick was the usual way that this corporal punishment would have been administered. It was usually administered by the person who was in charge, more often than not on the spot. In the primary school, which I can just speak of for myself, it would have been in the presence of other people. If it was a serious offence it was the Resident Manager that punished. I do know from speaking with the Sister who minded the small babies that she said that she couldn't slap, it was one of two other Sisters that could slap if a punishment was needed. But it is likely that most of the children that went through the school would have experienced corporal punishment at some stage. 10.42 Sr Casey also asserted that, from 1956 onwards, the Resident Manager forbade the novices to slap any of the children in the Industrial School. Corporal punishment was inflicted by means of a stick or a cane. Sr Casey said that, in her experience from the primary school, the cane was not carried about by the Sisters: The stick or the ruler would have been there on the teacher's desk so then if the Sister needed to administer it for whatever reason it was there at her hand. 10.44 The Sisters of Mercy acknowledged that corporal punishment was not confined to the classroom, but Sr Casey did not have any personal experience of what occurred in the Industrial School. Other forms of punishment were resorted to in Newtownforbes. Such punishments included putting a child sitting alone at a punishment table or putting her to the back of the classroom. Witnesses also made reference to children being placed in a small room on their own as a punishment. Sr Casey confirmed that a room known as St Rourkes did exist in Newtownforbes, although she was not able to identify which of two possible rooms it was. She confirmed that children were confined in this room as a punishment. Speaking from her own experience in the primary school, Sr Casey said that punishable offences would have included being late for class, attempting to answer back or not knowing lessons. However, she said that she did not really know what was considered a serious enough offence to warrant being referred to the Resident Manager. Sr Casey recalled seeing the industrial school children being slapped. She stated: One Sister slapped children from the industrial school on the knuckles. This seemed wrong to me then and as I look back now, even more so. I recall another Sister who slapped too much and for what seemed little reason. 10.48 During the hearing, she elaborated further by saying: The punishment at times took a level that I would have deemed to be unacceptable and I just wish to repeat what we have already said as Sisters of Mercy, that we really deeply regret and apologise for any hurt and damage that was caused to the children that passed through our schools. 10.49 Sr Casey also acknowledged that bed-wetting was a problem and children were slapped for bedwetting. She emphasised, however, that it was only the older girls who were slapped, and that children under eight years of age were not punished for wetting the bed. She said that there was very little understanding about the whole problem of bed-wetting, its causes and the shame associated with it. One of the other solutions used at that time was to deprive the children of a drink after a certain hour in the evening. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 435
10.43
10.45
10.46
10.47
10.50
10.51
She was questioned about the rationale for slapping, and the policy of withholding fluids in the evening, as neither approach appeared to have had an effect on resolving the problem. She could not shed any light on whether these practices were even questioned. Sr Casey had spoken to Sisters about whether head-shaving was used as a punishment. She said: I spoke to Sisters about that and the majority wouldn't have remembered shaving of hairs being used as a punishment. In the course of conversation though with one she felt that it may have been used but nobody could tell me for certain that it was used. They could say that shaving of the hair was not uncommon when children became infested with lice, or whatever. But the Sisters would have offered me the view that it wasn't used as a punishment.
10.52
Documented instances of punishments

10.53 No punishment book was kept in Newtownforbes at any time during its history, and this fact was confirmed by Sr Casey. In addition, there were no letters or documents dealing with instances of physical punishment discovered to the Investigation Committee. However, the Department of Education discovery indicated that the Department Inspector was concerned that the children were being mistreated in the early 1940s. Dr Anna McCabe4 visited the School in 1940 and had noticed in the infirmary that there was bruising on many of the girls bodies. In her letter of 12th February 1940 to the Reverend Mother of the School, Sr Lucia, she stated: I was not satisfied in finding so many of the girls in the Infirmary suffering from bruises on their bodies. I wish particularly to draw attention to the latter as under no circumstances can the Department tolerate treatment of this nature and you being responsible for the care of these children will have some difficulty in avoiding censure. 10.55 The discovery contained no response to this letter, suggesting no reply was written by the Reverend Mother. The Sisters of Mercy contended that the letter of 12th February 1940 from Dr McCabe had not in fact been sent, as no such letter was found in their archive. The Congregation also said that it had been unaware of these allegations of neglect until these documents were furnished to it by the Commission as part of the discovery process in 2004. It acknowledged, once it had seen these documents, that it was deeply disturbed and it accepted the negative reports of the Department. The Sisters of Mercy submitted annual reports to the Department of Education on the Schools activities spanning the period 1938 to 1958. These reports do not reflect the views expressed by the Inspector in February 1940 which raised the issue of bruising on the bodies of girls in the infirmary. In these reports, the Sisters were eager to satisfy the Department that the most cordial and friendly of relations existed between staff and pupils. The 1941 report stated Nothing but the most cordial and friendly relations exist. In 1948, it was noted that A very happy homely spirit prevails between nuns and pupils. In some years, the annual reports refer to punishments, including the Deprivation of Treats, which was considered seldom necessary, or being placed at a separate table in the dining hall, or being given a small charge instead of Recreation, or, Transcribing some papers of Literature. The 1944 report noted that:
4
10.54
10.56
10.57
436
the greatest punishment of all is to be brought under the notice of the Superior, on her making visits to the school, their faults made known to her. And thus their good name gone. 10.58 In 1947, the report noted that Junior Children receive a Motherly slap on their arm. The 1948 report commented that junior children receive a light slap or a caution or they could be Brought before Superior and their good name gone. These reports indicate that the Sisters of Mercy were aware of proper standards of punishment. The wording of these reports is very similar and repetitive so their value is questionable.
10.59
10.60 A respondent witness, Sr Francesca, who worked in the Industrial School for nearly 20 years, gave evidence. The picture that emerged was that the large numbers in the School meant that discipline and control were important issues in the management of the School: Well, you had to be formal with them and strict. You had to be, not harsh with them, no, but Id say formal with them. 10.61 She added that another way of being formal was to impose a rule of silence at night in the dormitories. She said slapping was always a last resort and that she would avoid slapping the children if she could. Treats were used as an enticement for the children to behave. When children had to be slapped, she conceded that she did slap them with a stick or a cane or a ruler on the hands. She also acknowledged that they would be placed in a small room, for a period of half an hour to an hour as punishment. One such room was known as St Rourkes. She said some children went through the School and were never slapped, and she disputed allegations that beatings were constant: ... if you take a 100 children, invariably somebody is going to be punished, but I wouldnt say it was constant beating. 10.63 Sr Francesca attributed much of the blame to the Department and the medical profession, for not providing the nuns with better advice on how to deal with the problem of bed-wetting. She added: ... in hindsight and from experience I really feel that slapping children was not the solution or the answer, and I am sorry I ever did it. I dont think I would do it now or I wouldnt do it now. 10.65 The other respondent witness, Sr Elena, said that corporal punishment was necessary at times. Corporal punishment was also a deterrent against bad behaviour: with the threat of punishment, the pupils were more likely to co-operate and behave in class. She admitted that she used corporal punishment in the class by slapping with a cane or ruler. She claimed that she was strict but fair, and worked in the best interests of furthering the education of the children. To this end, she agreed that discipline and corporal punishment were part of the regime and necessary. In evidence, she stated: ... They appreciated discipline in the class very, very much and they worked very favourably with me and we got on. There was a good rapport between us, even though I was strict, but they knew I worked for their good and that was my one aim, to help every child as possibly best I could. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 437
10.62
10.64
10.66
However, she disputed that corporal punishment was something that was used on a daily basis. She said she had noticed a cane one day: and I said I will bring in this today, and if they see it in my hand it might keep them a bit quiet, they will sit down. They will know that I am on high today.
10.67
Further, she acknowledged that she treated the industrial school children differently: I know you would have to be strict, very strict with them because learning and school and books wasnt their forte.
10.68
Sr Elena also admitted that she was exacting in her standards in the classroom, particularly with regard to homework, and if children did not have their homework done she would give them a smack now and again. She acknowledged that she was more exacting with the children from the Industrial School. This evidence confirmed Sr Caseys impression from her own recollection of national school that industrial school children were treated more harshly.
10.69
Witness statements
10.70 Thirteen witness statements were furnished to the Investigation Committee on behalf of the Sisters of Mercy. These 13 statements were from nuns who had taught in the primary school. Each of them stated that corporal punishment was used in the School but it was not in any way constant or excessive. All of their statements repeated the words: corporal punishment was used only as correction for misbehaviour. It was not administered for trivial reasons or for no reason at all. 10.71 Four of the 13 Sisters who submitted witness statements were in Newtownforbes serving as postulants in the early 1940s, the time when Dr Anna McCabe was highly critical of the Institution. Yet, each of these nuns claimed that the children were well cared for. It is impossible to reconcile these Sisters memories of Newtownforbes with the documented material. The repetition of the words corporal punishment was used only as correction for misbehaviour was formulaic and defensive and tended to undermine the independence of the statements.
Allegations of physical abuse

10.72 The witnesses who appeared before the Committee complained of severe physical abuse, including beatings. They claimed that such beatings were administered for bed-wetting, not knowing schoolwork, talking, and other behaviours. Bed-wetting 10.73 One witness, Sarah,5 resident in Newtownforbes in the late 1940s to the early 1950s, vividly recalled being hit by a nun around the head for wetting the bed. She said that anyone who wet the bed was punished by a beating with a stick or a slap around the head. The punishment was administered there and then. They were told that they were stupid or were called an amadan or an eejit, anything to make them feel degraded. One witness, Hannah,6 resident in Newtownforbes from the mid-1940s to the mid-1950s, also recalled getting unmerciful beatings for wetting the bed. The residents would have to display their wet sheets to the nuns and then they would be beaten.
5 6
10.74
438
Not knowing schoolwork 10.75 Sarah recalled being beaten with the side of a ruler on her knuckles for attempting to write with her left hand: I went to pick up a pencil with my left hand and I got the ruler, not the flat of the ruler, the side of the ruler on the back of the hand, on the knuckles to make sure that, you know, you didnt do that again. 10.76 Another witness, Rachel,7 resident in Newtownforbes from the late 1930s to the late 1940s, also alleged that she was beaten for not learning passages from the Bible in school. On this occasion, the nun who was teaching her, Sr Carla8, kept her back after class and swung her around by the hair until she had lumps in her hair. As a result of being kept behind after class, this witness was late for her dinner and so she was hit on her back with a cane by the nun in charge of the dining hall, Sr Paola9. Hannah recalled that she was beaten for not knowing her lessons, or not getting them right in school, or not being able to read. She alleged that a cane or a strap was used to beat them with. She alleged that they were beaten on the hands with the cane, a ruler or the leather strap. Miscellaneous punishments 10.78 Rachel recalled being beaten with a belt by a nun, Sr Paola, as she and two other girls had fallen asleep in the same bed together. The next morning, they got another beating with a cane by a different nun, Sr Francesca. They were then aged about 10 or 11 years. This witness also took issue with the documents from the Sisters of Mercy stating that the children received a light slap. She said they got a beating and not a light slap.
10.77

10.79 1. In the absence of documentary evidence, it is not possible to reach conclusions as to whether the corporal punishment used in Newtownforbes was so excessive or pervasive as to amount to abuse. Documentation would have provided contemporary evidence about the extent to which corporal punishment was used, and the policy of the authorities as to its use. Without it, the evidence presents two conflicting accounts. Ex-residents who gave evidence indicated that it was widespread and severe, and was administered for trivial offences, not just serious breaches of discipline. The Sisters of Mercy, on the other hand, did not dispute that corporal punishment was a feature of life in the School, and that children were slapped with a cane, a ruler or a leather strap, however they believed it was not excessive or abusive, but appropriate for the time. 2. Older children were physically punished for bed-wetting. Ignorance was no excuse for the mismanagement of nocturnal enuresis in this way. Whilst blame must attach to the Department of Educations Medical Inspector for failing to address the issue, the Sisters should have informed themselves of current thinking about how to deal with the problem. 3. Other forms of punishment besides corporal punishment could be abusive when they caused humiliation, rejection or fear. 4. The letter of Dr McCabe in February 1940 referring to bruising on childrens bodies is disturbing. Sisters who were in Newtownforbes at the time gave evidence that the children were well cared for. None of them appeared to have been aware that children had been mistreated in the School.
7 8 9
439
5. In the national school, the Industrial School children were treated more harshly than the town children. One of the Sisters who taught in the School claimed that she had to be more severe on these children and appeared to defend this severity as being necessary. 6. Despite the Departments regulations forbidding the use of corporal punishment for failure at lessons, it was used for that purpose.
Neglect
Documented evidence about living conditions in the School
Living conditions in the 1940s 10.80 The picture of the School that emerges from the Departments records is one of serious neglect in the early years under review. A letter dated 12th February 1940 to the Resident Manager of the School from the Departments Medical Inspector, Dr Anna McCabe, reveals the appalling neglect of the children. In this letter, Dr McCabe expressed her disappointment at the lack of supervision in the School and, more importantly, her dismay at the filthy dirty condition of the children: I cannot find any excuse which would exonerate you and your staff from the verminous condition of several of the childrens heads. 10.81 Dr McCabe was highly critical in finding so many of the girls in the Infirmary suffering from bruises on their bodies, stating, under no circumstances can the Department tolerate treatment of this nature and you being responsible for the care of these children will have some difficulty in avoiding censure. Further neglect was noted in this letter by the untreated abscess I discovered in the child in the Infirmary. She attributed the cause of the serious neglected state of the children to the lack of adequate and appropriate supervision by the nuns. She prevailed upon the Resident Manager to take immediate action to remedy these problems, particularly by increasing staff numbers to ensure stricter supervision. No further action was taken by Dr McCabe except for the threat of taking the matter further if the situation did not improve by her next visit. It is strange that conditions had deteriorated so rapidly in just 10 months because, in April 1939, when Dr McCabe had visited the School, she found it to be in a clean healthy state and the food, she noted, was of very good quality. The inspection reports for 1941 and 1942 are missing. The next available General Inspection report of Dr McCabe is that of 30th September 1943. On that occasion, she found that the School had much improved since previous inspections. Her only criticism was the fact that many of the children had no shoes and were going around barefoot. She found that 12 small babies had no shoes at all and noted that they looked forlorn and cold. She was of the view, however, that the medical care and supervision of the children had improved. Following on from this visit, the Department of Education Chief Inspector wrote to the Resident Manager on 13th October 1943 regarding the lack of shoes for the younger children. He requested the Resident Manager to take immediate steps to remedy this matter and pointed out in the letter that the practice of allowing children to go barefoot was condemned on medical grounds as exposing the children to the danger of infection from cuts. By 1944, conditions had deteriorated yet again in the School. When Dr McCabe visited the School on 15th June 1944 she wrote, I regret to state that this school has gone back since my last inspection. 440 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
10.82
10.83
10.84
10.85
10.86
In particular, the cleanliness and hygiene of the children was a great cause of concern again: The children looked and were very untidy, necks and hair badly washed and in most cases heads were verminous.
10.87
On this visit, she also found that 13 children had lost weight but this, it seemed, was attributed to their having home visits or having returned from hospital. She prevailed upon the Resident Manager to make a number of improvements, particularly with regard to the supervision of the children. From this report it seemed that the supervision was left to the girls themselves instead of members of the religious community. Dr McCabe made a number of recommendations for improving the standard of cleanliness and hygiene in the School. She recommended providing additional bathrooms, a toothbrush for every child, and a nailbrush and more mirrors. She had also complained about the lack of adequate fire exits in one of the dormitories. One particular dormitory only had one fire exit instead of two, the number the Department felt was necessary so as to obviate, as far as possible, the danger of the loss of life through fire. When Dr McCabe visited the School the following year, on 3rd July 1945, she found that there was much improvement generally. In particular, she was of the view that the children were clean and well cared and there was better supervision all round. On her next visit on 1st May 1946, Dr McCabe had similar comments to make, noting that the children were much cleaner and tidier and the supervision was much better. Again, in 1947, Dr McCabe made the same comments, particularly that the children were cleaner and neater, and the supervision was better. In 1948, it was noted that extra staff were given over to the Industrial School. In contrast with Dr McCabes report in 1948, where she recorded that the School had improved and the children were well cared and supervised, there is a contemporaneous complaint from a parent of children at the School. A father had visited and had found that his girls were suffering from scabies for months past. He made a complaint to the Department of Education in person on 24th April 1948. He said that One of the girls hands is practically disabled from the sores between her fingers. He also complained about the very bad condition of the childrens footwear and the fact they had no stockings. The Departmental note which recorded this complaint stated that the parent in question was asked to put his complaint in writing. It is not known whether he ever did so, but it would appear that he did not. The note ended nothing further in this case. Living conditions in the 1950s
10.88
10.89
10.90
10.91
10.92
10.93
Conditions seemed to have improved considerably in the 1950s, and they never reverted to the neglect of the 1940s. This improvement was in spite of a significant fall-off in numbers, which must have had a serious impact on the finances of the School. Declining numbers were a constant source of worry. The only issue raised by the Resident Manager with the Departmental Inspector was the decline in the number of admissions to the School and the resulting reduction in income. In 1954, Dr McCabes inspection report noted that the Resident Manager was very anxious about falling numbers. On every subsequent visit by Dr McCabe, the Resident Manager spoke to her about this issue and, in 1956, suggested taking in small boys. Dr McCabe informed her that it would not be possible, as the junior schools were also experiencing a decline in numbers and that there were three other schools in the locality who could take in little boys. In 1957 and 1958, the General Inspection Report noted that the Resident CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 441
10.94
Manager was very perturbed about the falling numbers. In 1959, Dr McCabe again commented that the Resident Manager was very upset that the numbers for admission are falling. 10.95 Dr McCabe did not comment on the impact of the reduced numbers on the ability of the Sisters to deliver an appropriate standard of care to the children. Living conditions in the 1960s 10.96 The issue of falling numbers continued to be a preoccupation of the Resident Manager throughout the 1960s. Each year from 1960 to 1964 the General Inspection Reports noted that the School was very well run. Each category of inspection was noted as being very good, particularly food and diet, health, clothing and sanitation. Dr McCabe commented in 1964: The Resident Manager is very co-operative and kind and anxious to make all the improvements she can. 10.97 The final Inspection Report for the School was dated 28th July 1966 and was conducted by Dr Lysaght. Overall, he found that the School was well run in each area of inspection.
Response of the Sisters of Mercy to the documents

10.98 The Sisters of Mercy were unaware of the contents of the Department of Education records in respect of Newtownforbes until they were furnished to them by the Committee as part of the discovery process in 2004. They said that, before their discovery, they were unaware of such dreadful conditions existing in the School in the 1940s. Sr Casey at the Phase I public hearing acknowledged that, once they had seen the documents, they had become very concerned: We were deeply disturbed when we received the Department discovery of those documents between 40 and 45. I immediately set about meeting all who had worked at any stage in the orphanage to try and see could they help throw light on these documents, because that was the first time that we were aware, and that we had sight of those documents. 10.99 They asserted that their knowledge of conditions in the School was very limited as their Congregational archive did not reveal such neglect. The material consisted of medical records, school registers, education levels of the children, and very general information which did not in any way corroborate the complaints that had been made by the complainants. Apart from the lack of documentary material, their attempts to discover more about the School were hampered by the fact that many Sisters who had worked in the School had since died. In particular, all of the Resident Managers during the period under review were deceased. When the allegations of abuse came to light, it was a source of shock to the Sisters of Mercy. It was even more of a shock to the Sisters when the revelations were made in the Dear Daughter programme shown on television in 1996 because: ... it did come as a shock to us at that time, particularly in view of the fact that up until then quite a few of the former residents would have been in the pattern of not only contacting different Sisters, but actually coming back and visiting the convent. 10.101 When questioned about the maltreatment of the children that appeared to have occurred, on the basis of these documents, Sr Casey accepted at the Phase III public hearing the negative reports of the Department and acknowledged: That was a difficult period in the time of the Institution and we deeply regret that, but from then on, I think written into the record again from the opening appearance at the Commission ... most of the reports showed a marked improvement. 442 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
10.100
10.102
Sr Casey was unable to provide any explanation for the bad management in the 1940s. She offered the view that a change in Resident Manager in 1947 seemed to bring about an improvement and, from then on, supervision became a central issue, which led to improved conditions. She was informed by one Sister who worked in the School at that time that the supervision and all that became a big issue ... it was a huge issue, that you could never, you know, leave the children alone, that there would always have to be somebody there at meals or getting up or whatever. One of the Sisters, Sr Francesca, who gave evidence commented on this issue. She stressed that the Resident Manager was very insistent that the children should be supervised at all times, but she was unaware of the reason for it. This would indicate that Dr McCabes criticisms had been communicated to the management of Newtownforbes at the time, notwithstanding the lack of any documentary evidence of such communication. It was consistent with the hierarchical structure of the Sisters that the nuns working on the ground were not informed of the Departmental criticisms.
10.103
Food
10.104 Dr McCabes first General Inspection report of 14th April 1939 was very positive about the food. She found it was of very good quality and plentiful. However, by 1944, the food had deteriorated to being fairly satisfactory. In that year, she also noted that 13 children had lost weight, but this, it seemed, was attributed to their having been sick and having just returned from hospital. For the remainder of the 1940s, Dr McCabe consistently described the food as satisfactory or good in her reports, without providing any details. Throughout the 1950s, the food was described by Dr McCabe as very good. Her reports during these years are repetitive, as they consistently referred to the food as being well balanced and attractively served. Again, in the 1960s, the food was described by her as very good. The General Inspection Report of 1964 contained a sample menu drawn up by the Resident Manager, which illustrated the type of food provided for one particular day. According to this menu, the children received bread and butter and either porridge and fried bread or sausages and black pudding or eggs for breakfast. Dinner consisted of soup or milk, roast beef or boiled meat, potatoes and vegetables in season, and a milk pudding or fruit pie dessert. Lunch consisted of tea with bread and butter, meat sandwich or summer salad, and a fruit cake or pastries, and supper was milk or cocoa with bread, butter and jam, and black pudding occasionally. Special mention was made of delicate children receiving an egg flip at 11am and cod liver oil at 4.30pm. Dr Lysaght, who took over from Dr McCabe, also described the diet as well balanced and varied in his 1966 report. One of the nuns, Sr Francesca, who worked in the School from 1946 to 1963, gave evidence that the children received a hot breakfast in the winter time, which consisted of fried bread with either cocoa or tea and they also got porridge. In the evening, they received tea and bread and butter for their supper. She thought that the children received eggs twice a week as they had a farm with chickens and hens. She said that the children and the nuns received the food from the same source. She explained: we got the milk from the farm and they got milk from the farm, we got the bread from the bakery and they got the bread from the bakery. Meat was ordered from the one butcher, we got it in the convent and they got it. From my knowledge of the Sister in charge of the food in the dining room, she was very exact that they would have good food. 10.108 She was of the view that they received enough food, but that: CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 443
10.105
10.106
10.107
children are always hungry, even in boarding schools, but, like, I can understand that they say that they were hungry, you know, but they got their regular meals and good meals. 10.109 She confirmed that children who were delicate or underweight were given an egg flip or cod liver oil in between meals by being taken out of school. Rachel also said, I used to actually have to leave my class and go up for an egg flip and cod liver oil at 10.00 oclock. Hannah, who was in the School between the mid-1940s and mid-1950s, recalled that she was constantly hungry during her time there: I know we were always hungry, terrible hunger, hunger pains. She complained of being so hungry that they used to eat the grass which grew in the School grounds. However, she recollected that they received three meals a day: the breakfast consisted of porridge and bread and dripping; the dinner was a stew with potatoes; and supper was bread and jam. She added that she never remembered receiving an egg at all while she was in the School, but she conceded that it could have been the case that she disliked eggs and added, I know I was a very bad eater.
10.110
10.111
Clothing
10.112 One of the Sisters, Sr Francesca, who was responsible for the clothing of the children, and who worked in the Industrial School from 1946 to 1963, gave evidence that every Christmas she tried to have something new for the children to wear, as her own mother always had new clothes for her when she was growing up. She strove for individuality: my ambition was to get them out of uniform. Now they all wouldnt be the same, there would be as many colours as the rainbow, and I was very proud of the fact that I was able to do something like that for them. 10.113 She wanted each child to have three sets of clothes: one for school, one for outside school, and one for good wear. By the time she left the School in 1963, each girl had three sets of sandals and shoes and three outfits of clothing. The Resident Manager got her the material to make the clothes, heavy material for winter and lightweight for summer. She also taught the girls how to make clothes and to knit: They were very proud of the fact they were able to do it because I taught them how to use patterns, how to cut out clothes and how to use knitting patterns. 10.114 According to her, each girl had a locker assigned with a number which was for laundry purposes only. The clean clothes were put into the lockers once a week and, on laundry day, the girls changed and brought the soiled clothes down into a hamper that went to the laundry. Each item had a number to avoid getting mixed up and, when the clothes were brought down to the hamper, the girls showed the numbers. She stressed, however, that the underwear was not examined, as alleged. She said that she had no recollection of children being without shoes. She was not able to provide any information as to the state of the childrens clothes in the early 1940s. Sr Elena, who taught in the primary school, stated the children from the Industrial School were always scrupulously clean and very well groomed, and she never saw any of them with broken shoes, strapless shoes or whatever could be wrong with them. She was also of the view that their clothing was no different to the clothing worn by the day pupils from the town. 444 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
10.115
10.116
10.117
Sarah, who entered the School in the mid-1940s when she was aged one and a half years, and stayed until the early 1950s, when she was eight years approximately, recalled being constantly cold at night time in bed. Rachel described the clothes and the undergarments as big like denim jeans which were only changed once a month and it was too bad if you had an accident. However, she said the bed linen was very clean and the beds were cleaned and dusted every Saturday morning. She acknowledged that they had a toothbrush each, but shared the same bath water when having a bath. Witnesses said that children were not told about menstruation. Another distressing aspect for the witnesses as children was the complete lack of information provided on the facts of life and their total ignorance concerning this subject. Two witnesses stated that there were no sanitary towels provided.
10.118
10.119
Conclusion
10.120
Food and clothing improved over the years. In particular, Sr Francesca made considerable efforts to clothe the children properly. Problems with these basic elements of care that emerged in the 1940s appear to have been caused by a lack of proper supervision on the part of the Sisters. As there were almost no lay staff employed, it must be concluded that the Institution was run largely by the older girls. Once supervision was improved, the standard of care improved.
Education
10.121 In 1942, the internal primary school at Newtownforbes merged with the town national school, which was situated on the same grounds as the Industrial School, and from then on the industrial school pupils attended the same school as children from the town. This change was in accordance with one of the recommendations of the Cussen Report in 1936. Literary instruction for juniors (children under 14 years) was to be not less than four and a half hours daily, and for seniors not less than three hours. Children over 14 years followed the Domestic Economy Course for industrial school training in subjects including needlework, laundry, housewifery, dressmaking and cookery. The Children Act, 1941, provided for an extension of the period of detention of industrial school children to enable them to attend second level education. Sr Casey at the Phase I public hearing stated that the records of the Sisters of Mercy showed that, in 1950, three pupils got such extensions. She added that, in 1950 or 1951: there is a reference in our archives to seven attending secondary school, five getting honours in Caffreys exam, I think that was a business examination or book keeping or something of that nature. 10.123 The school register, she said, also showed that, between 1952 and 1962, at least eight children were attending the secondary school. She drew on her own experience as a pupil and recollected that, in the 1960s, there were at least 12 to 16 from the industrial school attending the secondary school, but they did not actually proceed to Leaving Certificate class, and she only remembered one going as far as fourth year. However, she pointed out that this was at a time before the introduction of free education, which came about in 1967, and most children left school at 14 years of age. In her own class, 30 sat the Intermediate Certificate, but only 13 went on to do the Leaving Certificate. She was of the view that children who showed an academic interest were encouraged by the nuns to remain on in secondary education. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 445
10.122
10.124
10.125
One of the biggest grievances of the complainant witnesses was the lack of education and career opportunities available to them: the industrial school children were prepared for domestic service rather than any other career. Sr Casey at the Phase III public hearing conceded this point, but sought to put it in the context of the time: Certainly the training was for domestic service, but if one puts that in the context, that at the time and the years that we are talking about domestic service would have been what most of the people in the country would have went into. Because if you even look at the Central Statistics Office, figures from there would have indicated that, for example, of people gainfully occupied by occupation in 1946 that in personal service there were 102,000. 83% were women and of that 79,000 of them were employed as domestic servants, so it wasnt unusual in the wider context.
10.126
She also pointed out that some of the girls from the Industrial School went into nursing and into retail. She acknowledged that not all the children from the Industrial School sat for the Primary Certificate, but added that every effort was made to give the children a basic primary education. Evidence of respondents on education
10.127
Sr Elena, who worked in the primary school, taught fifth and sixth classes combined, amounting to approximately 35 children. She commented on the difference between the industrial school children and the town children. She noted that the industrial school children lacked the advantage of coming from a home with all its attendant love and care and affection, and said that they were, slower and more indifferent and hadnt their heart in it all. They just came to school because they had to go to school. Furthermore, she felt that they had no ambition, whereas the day pupils from the town were very anxious to get on and were progressive, and some of the industrial school children were very weak. She made extra efforts to help them but, with some children who were very bright and some who were weak in the same class, it made teaching difficult. She was sympathetic: I always thought, you see, they hadnt the advantages of coming from a home. They were in the same environment all the time, surrounded by the same four walls, and I kept that before me to try and have them as good as the others, as possibly as good as the others.
10.128
10.129
She did not believe in ostracising weaker children and never kept children at the back of the class, or considered them dunces, as alleged by some of the complainants: I never did it because I didnt believe in it. I didnt believe in ostracising some children and saying they were dunces or branding them. I never did it, and that is why, you see, I was rather strict, maybe, and perhaps, I would say, harsh with them to try and bring them on and make them realise that they were as good as the next and that they could do it if they made an effort. That was always at the back of my mind.
10.130
Sr Elena disputed the contention made by some complainants that they learnt nothing while in school, and said that she always insisted that they be able to read, write and spell and stand up for themselves. She insisted: that was my motto, with taking an interest in them and working with them and perhaps pushing them and driving them, a lot of them they didnt want to do it. Thats what I aimed at all the time. Any industrial school children, I dont like using that word, but anyway any of these children that I had in my class, they were treated the very same as every other child and I insisted that they did their homework and I took it and corrected it and showed them their mistakes. There was no exceptions made, and I would be harder on them, I suppose, than on the others because they had less sense. Some of them had no interest in themselves, whether they got on or whether they didnt, but then as they would get older, theyd say, I wasnt taught or I wasnt helped or whatever the case may be. 446 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
10.131
Sr Elena said that she had no input into where the children went afterwards. She acknowledged that many of them went into domestic service. Her duty was to teach and she was confined to that, she had no say in anything else: You know, we just taught them and prepared them, and then outside of school there was two other Sisters with them who taught them husbandry and cleaning and all that to prepare them; exactly.
10.132
She could not discuss such matters with anyone in authority, not even the headmistress of the primary school, because the headmistress had no interest in the Industrial School. When questioned further, she clarified that the headmistress was only interested in the day pupils and not the industrial school pupils. She did not approve of this attitude, but felt that she was in no position to challenge it, as she was a much more junior Sister and had no say: It wasnt right. To me more time should be given with the children in the Industrial School than those coming from their homes because of the disadvantages that the industrial school children were under and what they were deprived of, of a home and parents and love and care, and all the rest of it.
10.133
10.134
Sr Elena said she was very much aware of the needs of the industrial school children, but claimed she was helpless to do anything because of the hierarchical system. Each of the Congregational witnesses acknowledged that the needs of the industrial school children were not met, although they differed on the reasons why. At Newtownforbes, the recommendation of the Cussen Commission to integrate industrial school children was implemented but the evidence of the complainants was that they were very aware at that time that the system discriminated against them. Evidence of complainants on education
10.135
Hannah, who was there from early 1940s to the mid-1950s, stated that she didnt get much schooling, adding that she was a very slow child. Her lack of schooling resulted in her not being able to read and write to the present day. She explained her illiteracy as follows: I wasnt taught to read and write because, as I said, perhaps I was a slow child and I didnt get that care like the other children did. The other children got more care than me, I do not know why. Is it because I was abandoned or I didnt have anybody, I do not know? My education was non-existent.
10.136
When she left the School, she got a job as a domestic in England working for a lady who looked after her like a daughter and with whom she spent 10 years. Her lack of education, she said, had ruined her life: I cant say I cant get on with my life, but I could have been anything. I want to be somebody but I cant. Even the college I go to now, I get great support from them, not from the Irish Government. I dont get any help at all. It has just blighted my life.
10.137
10.138
She added: I just want to know why, why I wasnt educated and why I wasnt looked after as a normal human being, you know.
10.139
She explained further: I was going to go on for nursing but the education stopped me, the reading and writing. The barrier was I couldnt cope at all with it. I was failing all the exams and it just was dreadful. And that was something I wanted to do in life and I didnt get the opportunity. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 447
10.140
Sarah, the witness who was beaten with a ruler for using her left hand, said that as a result of this treatment and her consequent fear, she was unable to learn anything in school and was put sitting at the back of the class: Because I was left handed and I really couldnt learn nothing, I was just living in fear in that place, you know. That is all I remember about school, sitting in the back of the class, not with all the other children in the front.
10.141
She said that, when she was taken out of the School at the age of eight years and returned to her mother, she attended the National School on Baggot Street, where she was put into a baby class where children were playing with sand. A different attitude was expressed by another witness, Rachel, who had no complaints about the quality of the education and who obtained the Primary Certificate. In fact, she said she loved school because it was an escape from work.
10.142
Chores
Evidence of the Sisters of Mercy 10.143 At Phase I, Sr Casey acknowledged that the children were engaged in significant amounts of domestic work, as well as other work in the laundry, in the farm, in the bakery, depending on their age. She acknowledged the effect that this would have had on them: So this undoubtedly would have impacted on the children. In fact, the children could easily have felt that their lives were thwarted and stunted by this type of regime. 10.144 The chores which the children were required to do were, according to the Sisters of Mercy, perceived as being part of their industrial training. The main complaint of the witnesses was the vast amount of physical work that they had to do. The argument put forward by the Sisters of Mercy was that such work formed part of the Domestic Economy Course, which each girl from 14 years of age was required to undertake. The course included subjects such as needlework, cookery, laundry, housewifery and dressmaking. The Reports of School Activities which cover the years 1938 to 1958, which were submitted to the Department of Education annually by the Resident Manager, make reference to these subjects. The 1948 report said: These girls take their turns in assisting in their own school kitchen and dining hall, prepare trays up for their friends. Assist under the direct supervision of a nun in the bathing and toilet of young children. Also in sweeping, dusting of convent parlour and halls, washing tiles, answering hall doors to prepare them for their future employment. 10.145 From the age of 14 years onwards, Sr Casey said the girls worked in different areas of the School, including the farm, the laundry and the bakery. She recalled hearing the girls singing while they were scrubbing the cloisters. However, the evidence given was that the girls were carrying out this type of work long before they were 14 years of age. The Sisters of Mercy stated that children of all ages carried out domestic chores according to what was considered suitable to their age. Evidence of complainants 10.146 Many of the witnesses complained of the hard physical work known as chores which they had to do in the School as children. Rachel recounted that they had to work very, very hard. She gave evidence of the type of work that was part of the daily routine of the Industrial School. From the age of seven or eight years, she said she was on her knees scrubbing and polishing floors, cloisters and big dormitories. When she was 10 or 11 years, her main chore was looking after the babies, which entailed getting up at 6 oclock in the morning to wash and dress them and to wash their sheets if they had been 448 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
10.147
soiled, as there were no nappies. She had to look after approximately nine or 10 babies in one dormitory. She slept in the dormitory with them. 10.148 Rachel said that there were three girls looking after the babies and toddlers, one for each of the three dormitories. In the mornings, she had to wash and dress the babies, and give them their breakfast of porridge, all before she went to school. No adult, lay staff or nun slept in the dormitory with the babies. When she went to school, two nuns, one of whom was very old, would look after the babies. Once school was finished for the day, she had to go back to look after these young children and take them out to the yard to play. At 5 oclock, she had to get the children washed and ready for bed before she had her own tea. From 7 to 9 oclock in the evening, the witness described that she had her study time and then, at 9 oclock, she went back to the children. At midnight, a nun rang the bell and she got the babies up to put them on their potties. The routine was the same at weekends. Rachel commented that a doctor had told her that she was a mother before she was a child, I find I am living my childhood through my little three year old granddaughter. This witnesss favourable comment about the education that she received, because it was an escape from work, becomes understandable when seen against the background of chores she had to do. Hannah gave detailed evidence of the daily routine, involving the various chores which she was required to do. From the age of 11 or 12 years, her job was to make the bread in the bakery, early in the morning before going to school: A particular day, would be you would be up fairly early and you would have to get up to make the bread in the bakery. We were quite young at that time, I am not quite sure of the age but we used to have to make bread at quite an early age. Some of the girls were quite small. They had to stand on stools to go in to make the bread, like troughs, to make the bread. 10.151 After working in the bakery in the morning, they then went and had their breakfast before attending school. Other chores included washing and scrubbing the floors in the dormitories, staircases and in the convent. Even during holiday times, there was work to be done. She recalled that they had to tease mattresses during the holidays. This witness also worked in the laundry from the age of 14 or 15 years. Contrary to what the nuns asserted, that the girls were happy whilst doing this type of work and were singing, she said We were always quiet and the nun would be saying the rosary around you or whatever, especially in the laundry. Hannah described the chores they had to carry out as hard labour. She alleged that they had to wash the nuns clothes and do the ironing.
10.149
10.150
10.152
Conclusions on neglect
10.153 1. The care of the children was seriously neglected in the early 1940s. In particular, the health and hygiene of the children suffered. 2. The children received a basic primary education, but their career opportunities were predominantly limited to domestic service. 3. The Industrial School children were treated more harshly in school than pupils from the town, and this impacted on their ability to thrive educationally. 4. Children from a very young age were required to undertake heavy physical chores which exceeded their capabilities. 5. Children over 14 years were required to carry out heavy physical labour under the guise of industrial training. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 449
6. Children were required to provide care for infants, without adult support or supervision from a young age.
Emotional abuse
10.154 The Sisters of Mercy, in their Opening Statement, conceded that the individual needs of each child could not be addressed; that each childs potential could not be known or realised. They acknowledged: It is undoubtedly the case that the children being placed in industrial schools were a particularly vulnerable population, not merely because they were children, but also because, in many cases, of the deprived circumstances from which they were coming. We recognise that there was no identification or understanding of many of the special or particular needs these children must have had, and that this lack of understanding showed itself in many aspects of the running of the schools. 10.155 Sr Casey at Phase I referred to the limitations of the system which, she said, did not and could not give individual attention to the children. She pointed out that the School catered for large numbers of children and there was only a handful of nuns to take care of them. She said that they had no childcare experience. The system was that two nuns worked full-time in the School, with others stepping in for supervision purposes. These nuns worked long hours, seven days a week, which in itself put pressure on them and would have had a huge impact on the children that were resident at the time. She said that the complaints made by former residents brought home to us in a very vivid manner the experience of the children, and how this kind of a system just couldnt meet the needs of children. Sr Francesca noted that the children in Newtownforbes did not get many visits from their families. It was rare that a child would get a visit. They did not get letters from their families on a regular basis, and some of the children did not hear from them at all. She said that, when she was working in the School, she was not aware of this need to belong to a family. She only realised with hindsight the yearning the children had to belong to a family: in hindsight again, we tried to give them everything, well say, materially, spiritually, physically, but we couldnt give them what they were longing for and that was family. 10.158 Sr Elena commented on the longing for a family and the effect of the break-up of the family unit on the children. The industrial school children longed for affection: Well, I remember school time, 3:15 or whatever, when wed close the school, theyd hold on to you and hold your hands and come along with you. To me, that was they were yearning for affection. 10.159 She also noticed that: I saw all these children confined, you know, to a very small area and they looked forlorn, many of them. 10.160 She added, nobody seemed to claim them. 450 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
10.156
10.157
Evidence of complainants
Loss of family 10.161 Rachel referred to the break-up of the family and the fact that, although the family home was in Dublin, she and her sister were sent to Newtownforbes: I was taken away at three years of age ... My sister was eight and I was three years of age ... I want to know why we were sent, myself and my sister were sent 80 miles away where we had contact with nobody, no family, no nothing. So with the result I lost out on a family. 10.162 She had contact with her older sister in Newtownforbes and said that she seemed to bear the brunt of the regime on her behalf. There was no preparation for leaving the School when her time came at age 16. She remembered that she was not even informed that she was going home. A dress and a coat were made for her, and a lay person who worked in the School brought her to the train station, where she was met by two boys who delivered her to her parents. Death of a child 10.163 The death of a child that Rachel used to look after had a very traumatic and distressing effect on her. One morning, the child was not well and she knew there was something wrong with her: because she was just lying around and I took her on my lap and I hugged her and tried to comfort the child, although I was only a child myself. I sent up word to say that the child wasnt well, but nobody came down. 10.164 She heard that the child had died when she returned from school: So when the school was over that day we heard that she was after dying, and I still see her on the bed with her little long dress laid out and we all queued up to see her. That lasted with me for my life, I always wondered where the child was buried. 10.165 The death of this young child was very distressing for her, particularly because of the lack of information provided and the fact that she believed no funeral took place: It haunted me all my life wondering where that child was buried because there was no funeral. 10.166 Another source of distress was that she was never told the cause of the childs death. Records of the Sisters of Mercy noted that the child died of cardiac disease. Another note recorded the name of the child, and the fact that a nun and a senior girl were with her when she died. The Sisters of Mercy at the hearing of this witness apologised for this traumatic event in her life. They said: The Sisters of Mercy would like to apologise to you for the trauma you must have suffered from witnessing her in that state of ill health. 10.167 They gave an undertaking to the witness to inform her of the location of the grave subsequently.
General conclusions
10.168 1. Prior to 1954, numbers were adequate to ensure that Newtownforbes was financially viable. However, the Department of Education Inspector in the 1940s was very critical of the health and living conditions of the children in the School. It is clear that children during this period suffered serious neglect. 2. Complainants spoke of poor food and clothing in the period after 1954, although there is no evidence that the children were malnourished or starved. Without a large farm CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 451
or a profitable industry to supplement the capitation grant, the management would have had to struggle economically, resulting in the poor provision of basic needs. 3. The day-to-day care of the children was undertaken by just two or three Sisters. Management ought to have recognised the inevitable consequence of such a system. It was abusive for the Sisters, who had a heavy burden of responsibility and work placed on them, and on the children, who could not have received adequate care and attention. 4. In order to control such large numbers of children, the Sisters resorted to a strict regime, depending to a large extent on corporal punishment. It became extensive, and used for minor misdemeanours, and even though it may not have been abusive in terms of severity, it did result in control through fear. 5. Transferring the Industrial School children to an external national school to be educated alongside children from the local community should have been a positive development, but real integration did not happen. Teachers treated them more harshly and the headmistress had no interest in the Industrial School children. They felt different, isolated and inferior as a result. 6. Instead of getting more encouragement to learn, the Industrial School children experienced a more punitive regime, and therefore became more disadvantaged. A Sister who taught in the national school admitted that she used more corporal punishment on the Industrial School children because they had less sense. She described them as slower and more indifferent and hadnt their heart in it at all. Such children needed encouragement and not a punitive, oppressive regime. 7. Heavy physical duties were required of children from a very young age. These chores were unsuitable because of the physical demands they made and the responsibilities placed on young shoulders. Children were required to do onerous chores before going to school, which affected their ability to learn. 8. Residents were required to provide care for infants without adult support or supervision. This was an unreasonable burden of responsibility, inappropriate to their age and was neglectful of the residents and of the infants.
452
Chapter 11
St Josephs Industrial School, Dundalk (St Josephs), 18811983
Background
11.01 St Josephs, Dundalk was first certified as an industrial school in 1881 and continued in existence until 1983. The Rules and Regulations for Certified Industrial Schools in Saorstat Eireann, which governed all industrial schools, were signed by the Resident Manager of Dundalk on 13th January 1933 and approved by the Minister for Education. The rules gave the name of the school as The Dundalk Industrial School, Co. Louth for Roman Catholic Girls. It remained a school for girls until 1965, when boys were first admitted. The School received formal recognition in 1971 for the reception of young boys up to the age of 10 years. The original school was established at the height of the Famine in 1847 by invitation of the parish priest and a number of concerned residents in Dundalk. The Sisters of Mercy came to Dundalk to work for the poor and sick, and five Sisters from Dublin formed the original group. A house, which was formerly the offices of the Excise Commissioners, was provided for them in Seatown Place, and it became known as St Malachys Convent. From 1855 onwards, the Sisters began to care and provide accommodation for orphans. In 1877, two three-storey houses adjacent to the convent were purchased for use as an orphanage. The funding came from Archbishop Kieran, who was a former parish priest of Dundalk, from a number of donations, and from the proceeds of a bazaar. The school numbers increased, and to accommodate the children an additional wing was built. By 1900, the School had become one long building made up of four adjoining three-storey houses.
11.02
11.03
Numbers
11.04 In 1933, the School was certified for 100 children. The average number of pupils in the decades that followed was as follows: 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 56 42 22 14
Location
11.05 The location of the School on the main street gave it the advantage of being close to the local community, unlike other industrial schools. The Provincial leader of the Sisters of Mercy of the Northern Province, Ireland, Sr Ann Marie McQuaid, summarised these advantages in the first public hearing: they were out regularly, both on walks and whatever activities were on in the town. Way back even, I saw it in the Punishment Book of the 1930s, they were getting out to the pictures which were being held in the town hall. The older girls got permission to go out CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 453
to do messages, to bring the little ones on walks. Also, the people of Dundalk ... seemed to have embraced the children because there was tremendous interaction, there was a lot of support and care from the people of Dundalk for the children right through the 100 years including a god-parenting programme where people god-parented each child within the Institution.
454
11.06
One witness, Elaine,1 who was there in the 1940s and 1950s, confirmed that the local people befriended them. She said: The local people were quite good, they would send in treats like boxes of sweets, my job would be to answer the letters thanking them.
11.07
The location of the School had many disadvantages too. The site was restricted, and offered little space for development. As Sr McQuaid explained: They had a small yard at the back with a shelter for the children with a roof and three sides and a hot pipe that ran through it and connected to the laundry ... On wet days, they were in the School.
11.08
At the earlier public hearing, she described the atmosphere of the School in more detail: It was a cold building. Even when the heating was put in in 51 it was still cold and they supplemented it in the 70s and they still had to put in heaters. It has long narrow corridors and it is more long than it is broad. It has a basement and three floors and an attic so it was a very formidable building for little children who were already traumatised to suddenly arrive in.
11.09
The limitations of the physical accommodation became a recurring theme in the Department of Education General Inspection reports for the period under review. The biggest drawback was that the School lacked adequate recreational facilities for the children. An outdoor concrete yard was all that was available, until an adjoining field, owned by the adjacent primary school, was used from 1952. This was of great concern to the Department of Education over the years and, in particular, the Medical Inspector, Dr McCabe. Another Inspector from the Department of Education, Mr Sugrue, visited the School in 1958, with the principal intention of providing additional recreational facilities for the School. It was not until the late 1960s that steps were eventually taken to bring about improved recreational facilities. It would seem that the School lurched along for many years with very little improvement or modernisation of the resources, undertaken either by the school management or by the Department of Education.
11.10
Closure
11.11 The School officially closed in 1983. In a letter dated 24th March 1983, the Sisters of Mercy applied to the Department of Education to resign the certificate for St Josephs. The Minister for Education withdrew the certificate under the 1908 Act with effect from 24th September 1983. Three reasons brought about the closure of the School. First, the Kennedy Report (1970) had recommended the introduction of a group home system, but the physical structure and layout of the School in Dundalk made such a system difficult. The Sisters of Mercy tried to introduce it by establishing smaller groups, with children divided by age. However, the group home structure could only be achieved on a different site and in purpose-built accommodation. The Department Inspector in his General Inspection Report dated May 1973 stated: This is one Home, almost certainly, where we will be spared the concern of providing a Group Home at least for the present for lack of suitable site(s). 11.13 Moreover, the Department of Educations architect, on an inspection of the School in 1976, stated unequivocally that This building is a death trap. He also stated that, There is only one Architectural solution to this case and that is vacate the present buildings. He was also strongly
1
11.12
455
of the view that under no circumstances should State monies be spent on the building except for first aid repairs. 11.14 The second reason for the closure of the School was that Health Boards in the 1970s were focusing more on fostering as a means of caring for children rather than residential care in institutions. The third factor that contributed to the closure of the School was staffing: the Resident Manager was elderly and in poor health in the 1970s; and it was difficult to recruit staff. All these difficulties led the Sisters of Mercy to enter into discussions with the Department of Education in 1977 regarding the closure of the School. To enable the older girls to complete their terms in St Josephs, the Sisters undertook the closure gradually. By 1979, the number of children resident in the School had fallen to eight. In 1983, there were just three senior girls resident in the School when it officially closed, and accommodation was provided for them in an apartment opposite St Josephs.
11.15
11.16
11.17
Management
11.18 The Mother Superior in St Malachys Convent, which was situated adjacent to the Industrial School, officially had overall responsibility for its management. She appointed the Resident Managers and was the person who made decisions about major expenditure. The Resident Managers were responsible for the day-to-day running of the School. There were three Resident Managers during the period 1936 to 1983. Their terms of office were 19261945, 19451963 and 19631983. All three Resident Managers are now deceased.
11.19 11.20
Sources of information
11.21 In carrying out its inquiry into St Josephs, there were three sources of information available to the Committee: (1) The evidence given by three former residents of the School. Originally 21 written statements of complaint were received by the Investigation Committee in respect of St Josephs Industrial School, Dundalk. As a result of these numbers, Dundalk was listed within the top 20 institutions to be heard [third interim report Dec 2003].2 These 20 institutions were ranked according to the number of complaints made against them. By the time the hearings were scheduled, however, only three elected to give evidence before the Committee. The implications of this reduction in the number of complaints are discussed later. (2) The evidence given by Sr McQuaid, Provincial Leader of the Sisters of Mercy of the Northern Province. She gave evidence in public at Phase I and again in public during Phase III hearings. (3) The documentary evidence from the records of the Department of Education, Sisters of Mercy and the Archbishop of Armagh.
2
Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, Third Interim Report, December 2003.
456
Time period of complaints

11.22 There were three complainant witnesses, spanning the period from 1946 to 1974.
Education
11.23 Children in St Josephs attended an internal primary school that followed the same curriculum as the local primary school, which was for children of the parish and which was located behind the Industrial School. The internal school closed in 1942, and the St Josephs children were enrolled in the convent primary school with the children from outside. The School re-located in 1954 to new premises a short distance away. Attendance at external national schools was recommended by the Cussen Commission in its 1936 Report, and the 1942 development was beneficial, especially when the combined school moved away from the industrial school complex in 1954. In its Opening Statement the Congregation offered explanations for the educational difficulties experienced by children in the Industrial School: It seems likely that many of the children had particular educational difficulties because of their disadvantaged backgrounds and the traumatic upheaval they had experienced in their lives by being separated from family and sent into an industrial school. 11.25 Most of the children who went there were very young on entry, aged two years and upwards. Whatever the cause of the under-achievement, the nuns concede that it is undoubtedly the case that the method of education provided was inadequate for the needs of many of the children. The Congregation acknowledged the fact that many of the girls left the School with only a basic level of primary education, but submitted that in Ireland generally, few girls attended secondary schools at that time. Two of the former residents complained about the limited education they were given. At the Phase III public hearing, the representative of the Sisters of Mercy expressed her regret that many of the children did not get a better education and that many of them did not develop their full potential. She added, however, that some children performed better than others at school. Indeed, some went on to secondary school, and to do nursing or secretarial work. At the public hearing Sr McQuaid conceded that, in general, there was a lack of awareness of the educational needs of the children in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Furthermore, there were no special needs teachers or classes to cater for children who had been displaced or traumatised. The majority of girls got no more than the basic level of education and most ended up in domestic service, irrespective of their abilities.
11.24
11.26
11.27
Industrial training
11.28 There were specific regulations from the Department of Education governing the curriculum to be offered in industrial schools. The object was to provide the children with skills and training so that they could become self-reliant in later life. For girls, according to the Sisters of Mercy, this training involved a compulsory programme in childcare, cookery, dairying, housekeeping and crafts. They acknowledged that a number of children have felt aggrieved at having to do housework and chores, because they saw it as doing menial work for the sake of the convent rather than practical training in preparation for employment. The Sisters of Mercy added that, from the 1970s onwards, this practice of working in the convent ceased. Some older girls in the early years were trained to work in the public laundry but they were not allowed to use the machinery, which limited the value of this work as industrial training. The Congregation said it recognised the resentment of many former pupils at the narrow employment opportunities provided for them. They also recognised that the full potential of many of the children in the School was not realised and that, as a result, great suffering had been caused. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 457
11.29
Department of Education and Science records

11.30 The General and Medical Inspection Reports dating from 1939 until the closure of the School give a contemporary account of conditions in St Josephs. From 1939, when she was appointed, until 1965, these inspections were carried out by the Departments Medical Inspector, Dr Anna McCabe. The School was inspected under various headings, such as accommodation, condition of premises, equipment, sanitation, health, food and diet, clothing, recreation facilities and precautions against fire. The Departments records reveal the pivotal role of the Resident Managers in the running and policy-making of the School. The Department seldom got involved in management issues. With the exception of two years in the 1940s, the Inspector reported that the children were well cared for from a physical point of view.
11.31
11.32
Conditions in the School in the 1940s as revealed by Medical Inspections

11.33 The earliest report by Dr McCabe is one dated 1st May 1939. She found that the buildings and equipment were in good order, the children appeared well looked after, and the food was of good quantity and quality. Her only criticism was the lack of playing fields for the children, as they had only a large paved courtyard for recreation. The next Inspection Report is dated 9th February 1944. On this occasion, Dr McCabe found the School clean and well kept, with the children well cared for. Her only criticism was that the blankets for the children were worn and needed replacing. A letter from the Department Inspector to the Resident Manager requested her to implement the recommendations of the Medical Inspector. The Resident Manager took great exception to the comment that the blankets were worn, and wrote to Dr McCabe informing her that there was indeed a large supply of blankets in the School, which she had not noticed. Dr McCabe replied by expressing her surprise at the upset caused to the Resident Manager, and stating that it was not a personal reflection on her part but that it was her duty as the Medical Inspector to ensure that the children had warm bedclothes, and where she saw blankets beginning to wear thin she had to inform the appropriate Resident Manager to replace them so as to ensure a continuing supply of blankets for the children. Dr McCabe inspected the School again on 22nd September 1944. Her report was even more critical of the conditions in the School on that occasion. The premises were described as not well kept, with a general air of untidiness around the place. Food was considered to be fairly satisfactory, but she suggested increasing the amount of milk and providing chips several times a week during the winter months. The clothes of the children were described as fairly good but rather patched. Again, Dr McCabe remarked on the absence of recreational facilities and suggested acquiring the loan of a field from the convent. On this occasion, she was highly critical of the management of the School saying: There is a general air of laissez-faire all over the place. I was most disappointed to find very many of the children with verminous and nitty heads necks not washed or ears. 11.36 She recommended that the Resident Manager acquire the assistance of a young nun. She drew the Resident Managers attention to the verminous and neglected state of the childrens hair, to the fact that the children were underweight, and told her to supply more milk and chips in winter. Again, this report was followed up by a letter to the Resident Manager from the Inspector of Industrial and Reformatory Schools, requesting that Dr McCabes suggestions be carried out. The Resident Manager replied that they were being implemented. Another letter in January 1945 enquired whether the recommendations had been effected. The Resident Manager furnished a response on 16th January 1945, stating that the recommendations had indeed been implemented, 458 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
11.34
11.35
11.37
save for the fact that there was no young Sister available but a matron had been hired to assist in the dressing rooms. 11.38 Dr McCabe made two inspections in 1945, in February and September. Conditions were reported to be satisfactory and it was also noted that a young nun had been appointed as an assistant to the Resident Manager and that there had been a change of Resident Manager that year. However, the following year, the inspection yielded poor results again. On 28th June 1946, having visited the School, Dr McCabe remarked scathingly in her report on the deterioration in standards from the previous year. She was highly critical of the running of the School: The school on the whole is very carelessly run and slip-shod - the children are anything but clean the supervision is hopeless. Practically every single child in the school had a verminous and nitty head which proves the total lack of supervision in the Dressing Room. 11.40 She found that children under 6 were very badly supervised their ears and heads were in a dirty state and they had a neglected appearance. In her report she stated that she had addressed her concerns to the Resident Manager, who had informed her that the conditions were due to the fact that her assistant was out sick and had not been replaced. Dr McCabe clearly found the state of affairs to be completely inadequate and unsatisfactory, stating this is neglect, this just cannot be excused. The report made clear her low opinion of the management of the School. She wrote: This school is peculiar in that there never seems to be any lively interest taken in the children, there is always an apathetic air about the place. The Rev Mother is never very interested in the Industrial School and when I have asked for extra help she always has an excuse that she would willingly give it had she sufficient staff to call upon. 11.42 She summed up her frustration with the regime as follows: if these people are going to run a school they must look after these children otherwise I will have to recommend that they are not fit to look after children and have them transferred elsewhere. 11.43 She did not accept the lack of staff as a valid excuse, and she issued a warning: Now, if Dundalk wish to keep their school they will have to make changes and employ people who are interested in this work and who will supervise the children. 11.44 Dr McCabe commented, I have nothing to say about the food as all the children are adequately fed and look well, if dirty. Indeed, she commented that this aspect was the only redeeming feature of the running of the School. She ended her report by writing: I had really hoped for more changes when the new Sister started but instead of any improvements the reverse has taken place. 11.45 The Department again followed up the report by writing to the Resident Manager, reiterating the matters raised by Dr McCabe in her report, namely the poor hygiene of the children, the lack of supervision in the dormitories, the verminous and nitty heads, the poorly kept premises, and the fact that the assistant nun was absent for long periods of time and had not been replaced. The Resident Manager replied that they were in the process of carrying out the recommendations. She informed the Department that the assistant nun had returned and that extra help had been engaged for helping with the small children. She also informed him that the staircase and corridors were in the process of being painted. However, there was no mention of any steps being taken CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 459
11.39
11.41
11.46
to improve the hygiene of the children or carry out the other recommendations in the Medical Inspectors report. 11.47 Two inspections were carried out in 1947. After the first, on 9th May 1947, Dr McCabe noted that the school has certainly improved and that the children were well cared for. The second inspection was on 13th November 1947, when she reported the School as having definitely improved. From that time on, her reports repeatedly noted that the School was improving. Whilst noting routinely that the School had improved and that the children were better cared for, in her report of 21st June 1948, Dr McCabe continued to make suggestions for bettering the lives of the children in the School, particularly in regard to recreational facilities such as a play hall. This was still a matter of concern to the Department in 1958, when Mr Sugrue, the Inspector of Industrial Schools, visited.
11.48

11.49 Throughout the 1950s, Dr McCabe reported improvements in the School and specifically referred to the painting of the dormitories, classrooms and corridors in 1951 and the installation of central heating in October of that year. In 1952, she noted the acquisition of a field from the primary school for recreational use by the industrial school children. In March 1953, Dr McCabe commented that lots remain to be done yet. She noted in that year that there was still no recreation hall. She also remarked that the Resident Manager was very kind, but tired and in need of a change, however she noted that the assistant nun was very good to the children. She reported that the nuns were concerned about the falling numbers in the School. In April 1955, Dr McCabe recorded in her Report that the School had improved and that the Resident Manager was anxious to further improve conditions. She also noted that the children looked well cared for. On 19th January, on her first of three visits in 1956, she noted that the School continued to improve and that the children were much improved since attending the national school in Dundalk. They were well fed and clothed. Again, she commented on the fact that the children had no indoor play hall and could only play in the field attached to the primary school. On her second visit, on 14th May 1956, she remarked that the School was well run and that the Resident Manager and Sister in charge were kind and good to the children. She pointed out whilst the school is good and there is little fault to find, there is a little lack of initiative in running it. She noted that the children now had a play hall but she added that more could be done with this space to make it attractive and bright. In August 1956, she again noted that the School was well run and the children well cared for, and she further noted that the Resident Manager was to make improvements in the play hall. In 1957, the School received two visits from Dr McCabe. The first, in February, noted that the School was well run and that the nuns in charge were very kind and good. Again, she wrote of her aspirations for improvements in the recreation hall, saying it just requires a little initiative to get things going. The following June, which Dr McCabe referred to as an incidental visit, she noted that the School was well run and that improvements were certainly taking place but that a lot remained to be done. In her report of March 1958, however, a more critical tone emerged. She remarked that the School was well run but not as efficient as it could be. Again, she made reference to the lack of initiative on the part of management in making changes in the School. She referred to the children using the field from the national school for play and not having facilities on their own premises. The Department Inspector, Mr Sugrue, visited the School in September 1958, and wrote a report. The main purpose of his visit appeared to have been the lack of recreational facilities in the School. He stated that he was quite satisfied with the general catering for the childrens welfare apart 460 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
11.50
11.51
11.52
11.53
from recreational facilities, adding that, There is a great need for a Recreational Hall and for better facilities for outdoor games and pastimes. He went on to say that he had discussed this need with the Reverend Mother and the other nuns in charge of running the Industrial School, including the Resident Manager and the Sister in charge, pointing out to her that such improvements in recreational facilities had not been pressed upon the School greatly, due to the low level of the grant, but now that the grants had been increased substantially, he was insisting on efforts being made to remedy these defects. He suggested converting part of the old vacant national school buildings into a recreational hall, and the playground attached to the national school could be made available as a playground. He also pointed out that the children could use two tennis courts adjacent to the School. Having discussed these ideas with the nuns in question, he found them to be enthusiastic about carrying out his suggested improvements. 11.54 After Mr Sugrues visit, Dr McCabe inspected the School in October 1958, and found that there was great activity going on in the School, with many of Mr Sugrues suggestions being rapidly put into practice. She noted that the new Reverend Mother was very enthusiastic and co-operative. Also, she noted that an opera was being organised for Christmas. The year 1959 saw three inspections of the School by Dr McCabe, in March, May and June, although she issued just one report. In it, she stated that the School was very well run and that many improvements had been made and continued to be made.
11.55

11.56 Again on 29th and 30th April 1960, Dr McCabe referred to continued improvements but was characteristically vague. For example, she said that much needed to be done, but it was hoped that changes would be carried out in time. She felt that the Resident Manager and staff were willing and co-operative and she found the Resident Manager kind and attentive. The same comments were made in January 1961, that the School was well run and that improvements had been made and continued to be made. In 1962, she considered the School was still well run. Redecoration had been completed. She noted again that the Resident Manager was very kind. After a second inspection in September 1962, she again said the School was being very well run and the Resident Manager very capable. The falling numbers were of concern to the Resident Manager. Dr McCabe also remarked that she had visited the sea-side residence of the School and found all very well and enjoying the holiday. In 1963, there were four visits by the Medical Inspector to the School. After these visits, she found the School again to be very well run, with the Resident Manager being very capable and kind and interested in the children, and noted that she had done her best to make any improvements that were suggested. Following Dr McCabes departure from her post in 1965, Dr Lysaght carried out a full inspection on 24th March 1966. In his lengthy report he remarked that: There is a kindly & intimate atmosphere in this comparatively small school which makes up for its old fashioned & rough furniture and equipment. The fact that the numbers are low and the buildings not fully occupied tend to make it feel bland by comparison with more compact building or one in which all the rooms are occupied. Much could be done to bring it up to date by way of say modern beds.
11.57
Conditions in the School in the 1970s as revealed by Departmental Inspections

11.58 The next inspection, by Dr Lysaght, did not take place until November 1971. The state of affairs existing in the School at that time are outlined with some acerbity as follows: Two elderly nuns are mainly responsible for the running of this school, both spent practically all their religious life in this one school on this same work ... It seems as if the school staggered on for years with little interest or encouragement from the Department. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 461
It was left to the Sisters themselves to make a break-through when, in 1967, they embarked on major works of alterations and improvements. I understand that was primarily sparked off by the election, in 1966, of a new Reverend Mother, who has given this work her whole-hearted interest, sympathy and practical support. Until her arrival, (two sisters) admitted to me that they felt this school was virtually a barracks! 11.59 In April 1973, the Inspector noted the change in the type of child who was resident there, remarking in his report on the fact that Dundalk seems to have more than its quota of slow learners and retarded pupils. The report of March 1976 is very complimentary of the work of the Resident Manager, in achieving a high degree of stability for the children and in creating a warm and friendly environment for them. Interestingly, the Department Inspector noted: This establishment is a text book example of the people playing the more important role than the building. The children were all very happy and relaxed with their staff both Lay and Religious they were able to talk and play freely without any inhibitions. 11.61 Contrasting views were expressed by Department Inspectors. Dr Lysaght amended his 1976 report in complimentary remarks: This was a worthwhile and valid visit where one could state objectively that the present Child Care practices are geared towards the interest of the children, there is a healthy happy atmosphere ... 11.62 However, when the School was next inspected by Mr Graham Granville in February 1977 he was very critical: the Resident Manager ... has endeavoured to operate a residential childrens home for a very long time now under extremely exacting and formidable conditions within her own community ... is now showing signs of being a sick person and tired. The children are not suffering unduly at present, nevertheless, the future is very uncertain, and I would see a grave risk to the childrens safety if there were to be fire, and combine this lack of enthusiasm towards the childrens social and academic development and one has certain crucial problems, that cannot be over looked. 11.63 The Departments view of the School in an internal memorandum dated February 1977 considered the School to be inadequate on a number of fronts. It listed the concerns of the Department, namely the condition of the outside of the building; the need for decorating the inside; the inadequate maintenance of health records; contact with local schools; assessment procedures; co-operation with social workers; contact with parents; and the very inadequate fire precautions. The list of requirements was considered formidable, and the Department saw it as a matter of urgency to decide what had to be done with the School. Because of these factors and the falling numbers, the eventual decision taken was to close the School, which came about in 1983.
11.60
Life in the School

11.64 Elaine, a witness who spent her entire childhood from aged three to 16 years in the Institution in the 1940s and 1950s, was able to recall the living conditions. She was born in a home for unmarried mothers in Dublin and, at the age of three, transferred to St Josephs as a voluntary admission. Her earliest memories of the School were from age seven. She described life in the School as being dull ... grey. Nobody cared ... The food was awful. She said there was very little meat and the dinners consisted mainly of soup and potatoes. 462 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
11.65
She criticised the clothing. She was given a set of summer clothes in April that had to last right through until September and October, with the result that she was often frozen. Her dress was made of calico. All the children suffered from chilblains. The jumpers and stockings which the children knitted themselves did not keep them warm in the outside yard where they spent a lot of time. They wore their winter coats only when they went for walks on Sundays. She described the daily chores that the children were required to do. She explained that every child was given a chore that was her special responsibility: There was two lasses looked after the kitchen ... Other girls would ... look after the convent ... There was one lassie that had the laundry ...We all had chores. Some had the kitchen duties, some was cleaning up the pantries and things like that. Mine was the youngsters, there wouldnt have been many, not in todays terms. It seemed an awful lot then and it seemed a big chore. You had to look after them. You combed their hair, you fine combed their hair and make sure there was no nits and things like that. We didnt have any toothbrushes so we didnt have to look after our teeth ...
11.66
11.67
She began this child minding children from the age of about 10 or 11. She went on to explain the system: We would have lived on landings. Well there was the first landing, second and third landing. Mine would have been the charges on the third landing, they were the younger people ... They would have been maybe two to seven.
11.68
Elaine recollected that, when Dr McCabe would visit, everything would be lovely and clean. The beds would be dressed to perfection and the children would receive eggs twice a week for a few weeks prior to the visit by the Medical Inspector. She spoke positively of the Fairy Godmother system, introduced in the early 1950s, which was a programme for people from the area to take the children in the Institution out for an afternoon and take them to tea. They would also visit them at Christmas and Easter. She spoke with fondness of the godmother to whom she was sent. She also spoke favourably of the summer holidays spent at the nuns house in Carlingford. She recalled that, at the holiday home in Carlingford, there were some lovely nuns who did not work in the Institution.
11.69
Physical abuse
11.70 The position of the Congregation was that the first time they became aware of complaints about St Josephs was in October 1999, with the publication of Suffer the Little Children by Eoin OSullivan and Mary Raftery. In their Opening Statement the Congregation submitted: Allegations of abuse from former residents of St Josephs came as a source of deep shock to us, and particularly to the Sisters of the Dundalk Community, a number of whom had worked in the industrial school over the years, and were in regular contact with many former residents. 11.71 They went on to say: Former residents differ in their memory of the use of corporal punishment during their time in St Josephs. Some have painful memories of it and say they experienced it as excessive, others say it was not. While it is denied that excessive punishment was used in St Josephs, given the number of years covered by the period under review, together with the number of children in residence, it is unlikely that corporal punishment was not sometimes administered unfairly or harshly. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 463
11.72
Elaine spoke of harshness. She recounted several instances of beatings. One occasion was when she asked the then Resident Manager if she could sit the scholarship examinations for the secondary school. She was bright and loved school. When she made her request the Resident Manager beat [her] within an inch of [her] life for taking that scholarship from people outside. The worst part was the fear of the punishment, and the waiting to be punished. She described one nun as very rough ... for an old nun and added: She would give you six of the best and you would be lined up for half an hour before you got the six of the best, so the trauma of waiting to be punished and then being punished. They could be punished for little or nothing, for talking after lights out at bedtime: It didnt have to be anything in particular ... Because ... we were always told we were bold anyway so it didnt matter.
11.73
11.74
She recalled two other occasions when she was beaten. One was when she was aged 12 or 14 years and was in charge of younger children on a walk. Because she was unable to time the walk, they went too far away and returned hours late and she was beaten with a stick. The second occasion was when young children in her care contracted ringworm and she was beaten for that. She also complained of being struck by a member of the lay staff, one of a number of young women from a domestic college in the west of Ireland who were sent to St Josephs on work placement for approximately one year. The witness recalled this lay staff member as being very rough with the children: But she would often get a child and she would pull her by the hair and swing her, only the wall would stop the person. They would go sliding down. She broke every brush we ever had in the house. We didn't have many ... She would be murdering them, using them as rulers. She just flogged people. When she left the place, and she was only there for a year, there wasn't a brush in the place when she left.
11.75
11.76
11.77
The children did not complain about this staff member and she completed her placement. The witness explained that there was no one to complain to: I don't think that any of us had the knowledge or the wherewithal to complain. We were at these people's mercy.
11.78
On the other hand, although physical punishment from the nuns was not as severe, she found what she called the psychological abuse more damaging: I wish sometimes they would have beaten the living daylights out of me, it would have been easier, but the psychological abuse, it stays forever and ever and ever.
11.79
Jane,3 who was resident in the Institution in the late 1960s and early 1970s, gave evidence of being caned frequently by the Resident Manager. She admitted that she was a bit on the wild side, and got into trouble in the school. Jane further stated that the Resident Manager who punished her was also very good to her.
Rules and regulations on corporal punishment

11.80 An unusual feature of St Josephs, Dundalk is the existence of a punishment book, which covers the period 1888 to 1950. The Institution is unique among Sisters of Mercy industrial schools in being able to produce such a record. There is no explanation for its discontinuation in 1950.
3
464
11.81
Punishment books were required by the regulations governing industrial schools, but there was a failure generally to comply with this requirement. They were intended to control the level of corporal punishment administered and should have had an impact on the nature of the punishments given. If the book is an accurate record, it indicates minimal use of corporal punishment and employment of a range of deprivations for misconduct by children, but the evidence before the Committee casts doubt on the completeness of the information in the punishment book. Girls could be beaten on the spot and capriciously by all staff members, and none of that was recorded. The Sisters of Mercy, in preparing for the St Josephs hearings, obtained information from people who had contact with St Josephs in the period under review, including former staff, residents, professionals, Sisters of St Malachys Community, former Superiors of the convent, volunteers and neighbours. The Opening Statement summarised the information obtained from these sources: Former staff acknowledge that moderate corporal punishment was used in St Josephs for misdemeanours, disobedience, insolence, unruliness, bullying, and deny that it was ever deliberately excessive. The hand, a ruler, stick or cane was used. Normally the Resident Manager administered the punishment, and this was done in her office, or in a room called St Brigids parlour. Both of the Resident Managers disapproved of any member of staff using any form of corporal punishment on the children, and clearly made this known, not only in the industrial school but also in the local primary school. Regrettably this was not always adhered to, and one member of staff remembers being reprimanded for slapping a girl who had spat at one of the Sisters. It is also recalled that a member of staff found mistreating a child was not retained in the school. Former residents differ in their memory of the use of corporal punishment during their time in St Josephs. Some have painful memories of it and say they experienced it as excessive, others say that it was not. While it is denied that excessive punishment was used in St Josephs given the number of years covered by the period under review, together with the number of children in residence, it is unlikely that corporal punishment was not sometimes administered unfairly or harshly.
11.82
11.83
11.84
Sr McQuaid reiterated the point at the Phase I hearing: I suppose knowing human nature and knowing the length of the period of time and the number of children I think it would be unrealistic to say that there werent times when a child could have been treated harshly.
11.85
In her evidence during Phase III, Sr McQuaid described an instance that occurred in the 1950s, when a member of staff beat the children with a hairbrush. She was reported by one of the senior girls to the Resident Manager who subsequently dismissed her. The evidence of Elaine was that one abusive lay worker who beat the children with a hairbrush remained for the duration of her placement and would not have been due to be retained in any event. Sr McQuaid apologised to anybody who suffered either because of unmerited or excessive punishment, either from a Sister or from ones that we didnt even notice. With hindsight, they said they deeply regretted the use of corporal punishment. They realised that even when it was not excessive, it must have had a greater impact upon a child living in an institution. The rules governing corporal punishment were strict. In no circumstances was it permitted to be inflicted on a girl over 15 years and, for those under that age, it was reserved to the Manager or authorised person. From 1946, the Department of Educations policy was that corporal punishment was a course of last resort and only for grave transgressions. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 465
11.86
11.87
11.88
The Congregation stated that there was an emphasis on occupation and regimentation as a means of management and control of the children, particularly in the 1940s and 1950s when the numbers of children were large. It accepted that the impact on the children would have been restrictive and frustrating, but said that the atmosphere became more relaxed when numbers decreased in the period 1960 to 1983. It is interesting to note, nevertheless, that the staff-child ratio in the period 1940 to 1983 was 1:9, which was much better than the norm for the time: There were usually three Sisters and employed staff and that wasnt counting the staff who came in, Sisters who came in in the morning and the evening, so it was amazing that it was that.
Sisters of Mercy Records: Annual Reports 19341958

11.89 Records provided by the Sisters of Mercy include yearly reports written by the Resident Manager, giving a brief account of the activities of the School and running from 1934 to 1958, after which the practice appears to have ceased. The reports gave an overview of life in the School for each year under different headings: education/literary instruction, industrial training, fire drill, recreation, home leave, conduct of pupils, buildings and equipment, and aftercare. Under the heading conduct of pupils, details of the punishment of pupils was described in general terms. There was rarely mention of physical punishment: the most usual punishment was deprivation of certain activities or treats, such as an after-dinner sweet or the weekly walk, depending on the seriousness of the misdemeanour. The information was of a very general nature with some statistical material. These reports were the only contemporary record of life in the School, and the information recorded is unfortunately of limited value and varies little from year to year.
11.90
11.91
The punishment book

11.92 The punishment book covered the period from 1888 to 1950. At the opening public hearing (Phase I), Sr McQuaid said that the punishment book was still in existence but that it had not been filled in after 1950. She explained: Yes, we did have the book, which we gave to the Commission, but it was blank. And I must say I would have had the question that is probably in your mind, why it was blank. I dont have an answer, except that I am conscious that in the couple of other institutions that I am aware of that had Punishment Books theirs seem to have ended in the 1950s as well. 11.93 The entries in the book were recorded under headings such as the date, the name of the pupil, the offence committed by the pupil, who reported the offence, the punishment, and remarks on the case. Offences warranting punishment included the following:
11.94

466
being insubordinate and disrespectful to teacher. taking fruit from the pantry. showing disregard to directions. going out to visit relations without permission. Giving unnecessary trouble and showing insubordination. taking money from past pupil without leave. wasting time during literary work and showing insubordination to teacher. leaving school and going up town without permission. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

11.95
taking pocket money from another child and spending it without permission. showing disregard for directions and taking correction badly. tampering with keys. disobeying school rules and defying teacher. being insolent on different occasions disregarding orders given by the sisters and being disrespectful to teachers. refusing to go to recreation.
The book in many cases recorded that no punishment was imposed and, where punishment was decided upon, the forms of reprimand included being:

11.96
kept from Sunday walk, deprived of Sunday outing, deprived of Pictures Matinee, Placed at the Junior Table in Dining Hall, deprived of day at the Sea.
Physical punishment was recorded as slapping by the Sister in charge or the Resident Manager. Six entries of slapping as a form of punishment were recorded in the book. For the most part, punishment was deprivation of some kind. In this regard, the books authenticity as a record is not consistent with the witnesses who spoke of corporal punishment as being much more pervasive. There is no evidence that Inspectors systematically inspected the punishment book. The question is whether the book is an accurate and complete record of discipline in the Institution up to 1950. If it is, it demonstrates the benefits of an ordered system, in which the Resident Manager exercised independent judgment and a flexible approach to punishment. It is clear, however, that it does not contain any record of informal or casual chastisement by nuns or lay staff, and the existence of such other modes of punishment undermined the justice of the formal system. Emmett,4 who was in St Josephs as a boy from the early 1970s, described a frightening ordeal to which he was subjected in a very cruel punishment, when he was put into a small cupboard known as the black hole: The black hole is an area which is situated in the basement of the convent, right beside the kitchen area. It is about three, maybe four by four square, and in height also. It is totally black. One was thrown into there kicking and screaming, not wanting to go there, terrified and wanting to get out because it is not a nice thing to go into and just being left there all night. Myself and my brother were put in there. Why I cant recall. I was terrified being put in there, kicking and screaming, wanting to be let out ... whatever I have done wrong sorry, just let me out, let me out. My brother also tried to calm me down but I almost turned my anger out onto him ... all I knew was that this is totally wrong and bad to be done and there is nothing one could do about it. One kicked at the door to be let out and only to be told that if you keep kicking on the door you are going to stay in there much longer. It could be five minutes and at the time it was all night. An incident which happened in which I was in there all night on my own, Sr Sienna5 put me in there ... In the early hours, it must have been six around oclock ... I heard a noise outside and I thought it was Sr
4 5
11.97 11.98
11.99
467
Sienna and I said, please let me out. I will be good, I am sorry for whatever I have done, only for one of the kitchen staff to open the door and say to me, what are you doing in there? Naturally I would be so scared to say it to her, because I wouldnt want to get her into trouble because God knows what the nuns would do to her. She says, well okay Ill let you out but dont tell the nuns that I have let you out. I would have clambered out of it and creeped and went straight upstairs to my bed. That would be one of the worst times that it happened. Another time ... I did kick and push the door to get out but Sr Sienna opened the door and gave me a slap, and of course gave (my brother) a slap just as bad ... 11.100 The black hole may have been an alternative to corporal punishment, but this boy was so terrified by being locked in that dark recess that the experience was akin to psychological torture for him, as the nun must have known and intended. He also recalled a humiliating incident when he was put into a girls dress by the Resident Manager, who paraded him throughout the School in front of all the other children and staff. He was about five years old at the time when this incident happened.
11.101
11.102
There was no evidence of dependence on corporal punishment to control children. There was an effort to make it a punishment of last resort, and the fact that the School maintained a punishment book for a considerable period of time indicates an intention to regulate corporal punishment. It also provides evidence that other forms of correction, such as losing privileges or being demoted, were used. Unfortunately, an informal system also operated, sometimes cruel, that undermined the value of the formal policy.
11.103
Sample extract from punishment book

Date Offence By Whom Reported Punishment Remarks on the Case These 5 girls seem to be leagued together to give trouble.
August 1947
Disobedient, sulky Principal Teacher and muttering and also Miss A.6 when corrected. Troublesome to the Sisters in P. School. Refused to do her Miss B.7 charge. Impertinent to teacher. Attacked each other quarrelling over something Separated from teacher when out walking, went a different road. In the presence of all the children in Dining Hall. Teacher who was in charge.
Kept from going to see Procession and celebration of St Patricks Centenary.
September 1947
Just insisted on its being done.
September 1947
[Pupil] slapped by Sister Sienna.
Not much improvement.
October 1947
Not allowed out following Sunday.
6 7
468
Date October 1947
Offence Left school without permission in early morning. Went out to the country. Hid all day in the attic. Only missed when the children came to dinner.
By Whom Reported Missed by everyone. Had to be followed by teachers in a motor. Missed from dining, then reported to Guards.
Punishment No punishment given.
Remarks on the Case
October 1947
No punishment given.

11.104 The Congregation does not dispute the evidence that there was neglect for a period in the 1940s at St Josephs. It acknowledges with regret the criticisms contained in the 1944 and 1946 Reports by the Department of Education Inspector. It points out, however, that after 1946 conditions improved and the neglect of the earlier years never re-emerged in St Josephs. In making this assertion, it relies on the Inspection Reports after 1946. The Sisters of Mercy also acknowledged the failure to meet the educational needs of the children and conceded that, it is undoubtedly the case that the method of education provided was inadequate for the needs of many of the children. They accepted the fact that many of the girls left the School with only a basic level of primary education. The Congregation also recognised the resentment of many former pupils that they had been given narrow employment opportunities. They further conceded the full potential of many of the children in the school was not realised, and that this has caused great suffering. The witness complained about being belittled: I always remember (the teacher) would say you are the lowest of the low, you are the worst of the worst. We would often go out to the grass and try to see what the lowest low was, how low could you put your hands ... That was constant. We were never encouraged to think beyond the four walls that we were in. 11.107 The staff did not do what the children needed in order to feel secure and loved: it was the psychological abuse that was generally meted out because people didnt see children as children. We werent people, we were kind of fodder and nobody thought enough to give us a hug or love us, or do anything that would have made our lives better. ... I am not saying they were psychologically abusive. What I am saying is that they didnt know how to look after children, they took on a job they were incapable of doing. 11.108 Elaine summed up how she felt on leaving St Josephs with the simple phrase, we were there for the duration and turfed out on the streets then. She could forgive the poor food and conditions, but found it hard to forgive the emotional abuse and lack of love shown to the children: But the food was bad. Although I don't blame the nuns on the food, I don't blame them in that. In my own reading in history we did have the war and there was the rations, I don't blame them for that. What I always get annoyed with and I find no forgiveness was the psychological abuse and the lack of love. That would have cost them nothing. A kind word. But there was that constant we were psychologically abused, like, whatever it was about poor unmarried mothers. I am glad it doesn't happen today. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 469
11.105
11.106
11.109
Separation from family and loss of identity

11.110 11.111 Issues of identity and family featured prominently in the evidence of all three complainants. Elaine was born in a home for unmarried mothers and transferred at the age of three years to St Josephs, where she remained until she reached 16. When her first child was born, she began to search for information about her own mother, a quest which continued on and off for 30 years, with the help of her children. At the end of her search, in the mid-1990s, an elderly nun in St Josephs produced from her papers a letter written by the witnesss mother 50 years earlier, and this letter was sent to her along with other papers released on threat of court proceedings. This letter was a source of comfort and reassurance, and eased the sense of abandonment experienced by the witness down through the years. She explained: Well, my belief is that I was transferred to St Josephs Orphanage in Dundalk and my mother was never told. The only reason I know she was never told was because later on in 1946 she writes to the convent and she is looking to know where her daughter is. She is wanting to know would they mind if [she] sent me a little something ... I just believe that she should have been told ... It is the only letter. But she is quite upset about it, shes heartbroken in that letter. There is one line in it that says next thing I know the baby is gone. That jumps out any time I read it. 11.112 Elaine was resentful that society had enforced the separation of mother and child because of its intolerance of illegitimacy. She was also told erroneously that her mother was dead. In fact, she died much later and could have seen her grandchildren. She recalled being told that her mother was dead and experiencing no reaction. She said, What do you do? I mean Id never had a mother up to that. I didnt cry or I dont remember crying. They were just words. Sr Sienna who had been Resident Manager had meticulously retained papers relating to the witness, including this letter. Elaine was grateful that the Sister had preserved them but was frustrated when she would not hand them over. Only the threat of court proceedings forced their production. There was no understanding that children needed and were entitled to information about their families. She said: Originally when my first baby was born, and that would have been in the mid 1960s, I had gone back to the orphanage because the orphanage was still open and I was literally told to get on with my life. I wasn't told who I was or anything like that. I did want to know because I had a child then and motherly instincts must have told me I had a mother and she must have had some feelings too. 11.114 She greatly treasured the letter which recorded her mothers concern: ... I was absolutely thrilled to get it. Even though it hurts it is a letter that I will always treasure it, it is heartbreaking. She couldn't tell anyone, she was like myself she was alone. I did better than her I ended up with a family I could have. I do treasure the letter it says a lot. It says little but it says an awful lot. As I say, there is one line in it "the next thing I know the baby is gone". She doesn't know and it is heartbreaking that somebody could take her child and not tell her. 11.115 Jane was originally detained with her sister and a cousin in an industrial school in the West of Ireland. She was transferred first to the Midlands, and then to St Josephs, without her other family members. The reason for this separation was not apparent. The result was a complete loss of contact with her sister and cousin. When asked about them she replied, I really dont know now, they probably just made their own way on over to England or Australia, whatever. Emmett was one of a large family, all but one of whom were sent to industrial schools. He was in St Josephs for five years, and was less than four years of age on admission. He went on to 470 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
11.113
11.116
another institution, about which he was positive in his recollections, but described how he had become institutionalised, with consequent difficulties in maintaining relationships, including those with his brothers and sisters. 11.117 He described his need to form attachments, and he expressed this in a letter he wrote in 1986 to the Resident Manager: I was just thinking to myself, as I have always thought, of that I can never say that I never had a mother and father because I have had that, and thats you and Fr Burke.8 Just like all mums and dads, you fed me, clothed me, taught me to read and write, brought me on holidays. I will never forget and loads more and I love you both and always will. 11.118 He was asked if he stood by those sentiments today and he replied: Yes, I would ... Fr Burke ... I wish he was my dad, because I loved him so much. Hes one in a million ... Sr Sienna as much as there is a lot of good fond memories, and I stand over the letter and those words I have said in it ... there is a lot of good but yet there is bad ... I thought she was so good and the next minute she turned bad, by locking me in the black hole and humiliating me and embarrassing me and hitting me in her office. 11.119 He was eloquent in describing his yearning for a family life he never had. He said: Father Burke was very affectionate and you would get a hug from him and so forth, but naturally children need ... more than that, more loving and to be wanted. As all children would, as anybody in general does. I felt I wasnt getting that ... I felt that it was an uphill battle on my own against all the other environments ... just doing what father tells you to go to school at this time and you come back at this time, go to bed at this time. Thats fine, because one is institutionalised ... I find it easy to work in these environs, because I have been brought up in them. If I had joined the army I would have had no problems. But moving into ... the normal world, it is totally different. Naturally I would see the bond of family that [the family that befriended me] have with their daughter ... it is so beautiful that it is something that I wanted to express but I didnt know where to express it. I just found that very, very difficult. 11.120 Even relationships with his fellow pupils from St Josephs proved transient. He explained: The funny part about it all, living so long in [another industrial school] and so long in St Josephs I am in contact with none of them ... all children were put into institutions but they werent made to feel together, to be integrated more so, so they can bond good relations. Now, when I try to bond relations with the children ... one would have been slowly doing it. Next minute ... you are cast right out of it. I have never seen any of the girls or the school since then, until the school closed down. The only contact that there would be with your peers, to the nuns ... The problem with this is that I am going through a third party. 11.121 He then gave a moving description of his ideal of family life, something he had never had. He said: (The family) is the foundation of their (childrens) life and if they have as many of their siblings and their uncles and aunts and moms and dads and grandparents and whoever else all round them, they will have so much love the strength that will come from that that they will be a much stronger person. The confidence will be very strong and the selfesteem will be very strong and nothing will hurt them. I believe that to the fullest.
8
471
Limited nature of the Investigation

11.122 While 21 written statements of complaint were submitted to the Investigation Committee, only three former residents came forward to give evidence. There were no living respondents, and no evidence was heard from people who had worked in the School. The material that was therefore available was a limited amount of oral testimony and the information contained in the written records.
11.123
General conclusions
11.124 1. The relatively small number of children in St Josephs was an important factor in making this a less abusive institution. 2. The buildings were extremely cold, unfriendly and forbidding, a barracks before 1960, and attempts to improve them made little impact. 3. The children were poorly educated and trained, and their full potential was not realised. 4. Family contacts were not maintained and children were deprived of crucial information that would have helped them form family ties and establish identity. 5. For most of its existence, recreational facilities were almost non-existent. The children were kept occupied by doing daily chores. The need for children to play was not considered by management. This regime harmed their emotional development. 6. The children came from deprived backgrounds and the conditions did little to help them. 7. The punishment book, even though it is not a complete record, is evidence of an attempt to control corporal punishment. 8. Problems arose from time to time in this Institution because of the incapacity of a Resident Manager, by reason of old age and/or infirmity. The management system of the Congregation was slow to remedy the situation. The Department of Education was limited to exhortation and threat, but was unable to effect the necessary change because the Mother Superior appointed the Resident Managers. 9. There was neglect of children in 1944 and 1946, including gross indifference to hygiene, where the children were left with verminous and nitty heads. 10. Despite the forbidding environment and the fear induced by some punishments, the children did not live in constant fear. The Sisters, particularly in the latter years, were more approachable and involved. A small anecdote told by Sr Ann Marie McQuaid illustrates this point: when Inspection Reports said the School needed painting, the Sisters ran bazaars and collected door to door in Dundalk and Dublin to fund the cost; they could afford the paint but not a painter, so four of the Sisters, including the Reverend Mother and the Resident Manager, two Sisters from the School and the caretaker of the convent, painted the building from basement to top floor at nighttime; a former resident told her that they used to creep out of bed to see the nuns without their veils.
472
Chapter 12
Sisters of Charity
Introduction
12.01 In the early part of the nineteenth century, the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Troy, wanted to establish a religious community of women to serve the needs of the poor in the city, similar to the Daughters of Charity who worked in France. His coadjutor, Dr Murray, met Mary Aikenhead, and he thought she was ideally suited to carry out this plan. In 1812, Dr Murray sent Mary Aikenhead and a companion to begin their training in the religious life to the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary run by the Loreto Sisters in York, England. The rules of this Institute at that time were based on the Constitutions of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), and the initial formation of Sr Mary Augustine, as she became, were based on Ignatian spirituality. Sr Mary Augustine and her companion, Sr Mary Catherine, returned to Dublin in August 1815, and Dr Murray appointed Sr Mary Augustine as the Superior of the new Community. The Sisters made the usual three vows of religion chastity, poverty and obedience and an additional fourth vow to devote their lives to the service of the poor. The following year, Dr Troy canonically established the new Institute under the title of Pious Congregation of Sisters of Charity. Soon after its establishment, the Sisters began their visitation of the poor, and found that the Rules of the Constitution of the Society of Jesus which they had chosen to follow were not suited to the type of apostolic life of their new Institute. A new Constitution was drafted by Sr Mary Augustine, with the assistance of a Jesuit Priest, and was submitted to Rome for approval in 1824. The Rules and Constitution were deliberated on in Rome during the pontificates of Leo XII and Pius VIII, but it was not until after the accession of Pope Gregory XVI that they were finally approved in 1833. The original documents remained unchanged until 1917, when the Constitution was revised and modified in line with the new Code of Canon Law. The next revision took place in 1971, in accordance with the wish of Vatican Council II, and an Interim Revised Constitution was approved by Rome and put to the General Chapter of the Congregation in 1977. The Congregation felt that another draft was necessary, as they considered that the new Interim Constitution did not reflect the early Ignatian spirituality. A Congregational Committee was formed, and a new Constitution was drafted using the original 1833 Constitution and key parts from the Constitutions of the Society of Jesus. As the new Constitution was drawn from the original document, a second contemporary document was drawn up to encompass the teachings of the Vatican II Council and this was entitled The Complementary Code to the Constitutions.1 The new Constitution was circulated to the members of the Congregation in 1980 and, over the next three years, it was revised and edited and prepared for submission to the Sacred Congregation for Religious in Rome in April 1984. It was approved in August 1985.
1
12.02
12.03
12.04
12.05
Complementary document.
473
12.06
In 1995, it was recognised by the General Chapter that the Complementary Code needed updating and, after a wide-ranging consultation process throughout the Congregation, a new Complementary Document was produced in 2001. The Sisters used the Jesuits document Complementary Norms to assist them in the production of this document. Today, the Religious Sisters of Charity have around 150 communities in six regions and two provinces, spanning four continents. They continue the work of their founder, Mary Aikenhead, in three ministries: education, healthcare and pastoral/social. The Sisters of Charity in Australia are a distinct Congregation since 1842 with their own Congregational leader.
12.07
Governance of the Congregation

12.08 The Congregation is centrally governed by a council known as the General Chapter, which is the supreme law-making body in the Institute and is based in Dublin. This is headed up by an elected congregational leader with the assistance of her council. A congregational meeting is held every six years to elect a leader and council, and to deal with the affairs of the Congregation. An important duty of the congregational leader is to make Visitation to all of the Sisters in their various residences and ministries every six years. She may delegate this task to one of her council. There are three regions and two Provinces headed up by a Provincial/Regional Leader who, with her team, provide the link between the local communities and the central government. She is appointed by the congregational leader, who consults with the Sisters in the region/province to find the most suitable person. The leader must visit all of the Sisters in their residences and ministries ordinarily every two years, except in the year when this is done by the congregational leader or one of her assistants. The Sisters live in the local community to which they are assigned, and a leader is appointed by the provincial/regional leader, following consultation with Sisters in the community and subject to the approval of the congregational leader with her council. The community leader is appointed for three years, and may be reappointed for a second or third term in exceptional circumstances only. The congregational leader, with the consent of her council, has the power to remove the local superior from office for a grave reason. Chapter 4 Section 232 gives an insight into the type of person that should be considered for the role of community leader: 3. Care should be taken that whoever is appointed to the office of superior be a person of great virtue, edification, self abnegation and one whose obedience and humility are well proved. She ought to be discreet, suitable for governing and experienced both in practical and spiritual things. She should know how to mingle firmness with kindness at the proper times and have patience and endurance in bearing the responsibilities of her office. Finally, she should be one in whom the higher superiors can confide and to whom they can with security communicate their authority. For the greater this delegated authority will be, the better with the houses be governed and the works of the house promoted for greater divine glory. The community leader must also appoint a ministress and bursar to assist her. 12.13 She must give the rules which relate to her office to each Sister, and take care that no one interferes in the business of another. 474 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
12.09
12.10
12.11
12.12
12.14
The ministress acts in the absence of the community leader and also makes provision for the material things needed for the community. The bursar administers the property and funds of the house and keeps an account of income and expenditure.
Recruitment
12.15 In the past, the Sisters of Charity recruited two types of Sisters: superior degree Sisters and second degree Sisters. Second Degree Sisters who entered the Congregation were confined to domestic employment suitable to their vocation. They were required to be content with the occupations of Martha and interiorly to esteem all as being superior to themselves, and, with religious simplicity and modesty, to give each one exteriorly the honour and reverence which her station requires. The Rules of the Religious Sisters of Charity provided as follows in relation to second degree Sisters: 10. Finally, let them remember, that as the peculiar office of those in the superior degree is to promote the end of this Congregation, by instructing the poor, visiting the sick etc. etc. so their own peculiar office, is to employ themselves in whatever lowly of humble occupations may be allotted to them; persuading themselves that by aiding the Congregation in these offices, in order that the other members may, with less interruption attend to their own peculiar duties, they serve the same Master of all, our Lord Jesus Christ; since they do so for love and reverence of the Divine Majesty. With as much humility and charity as possible, let them be ready to perform with great exactness the office assigned to them. Thus they will not only receive the reward of their own fatigue and labour, but likewise become partakers in all the good works which God, to the praise and glory of His holy Name, may vouchsafe to effect by the ministry of the whole Congregation, and in all the Indulgences and spiritual favours which the Apostolic See has graciously deigned to grant for its members, for the advantage of their souls. ... 20. When any one admitted into this Congregation has received one degree, she must not seek to be advanced to another. Let her endeavour to acquire perfection in her own; employing herself wholly in the service and for the glory of God, and leaving the care of all other things to the Superior, who holds the place of Jesus Christ our Lord. 12.17 Today, the Congregation Manual states that each Sister and each local community must take responsibility for encouraging vocations and, in each part of the Congregation, there is a formation team, whose members are the Provincial/regional leader and the Sisters who are appointed to direct the formation of candidates, postulants, novices and the members, both in temporary and perpetual profession.
12.16
Apology
12.18 The Sisters of Charity were involved in five industrial schools, including St Josephs and St Patricks, Kilkenny and Madonna House, Dublin. The Sisters of Charity have never issued a general public apology in respect of child abuse. However, the Congregation has issued three specific apologies relating to the criminal convictions of three of its staff, one in Madonna House and two in St Joseph's, Kilkenny. The apology in relation to Madonna House was issued in 1994 and read: The Religious Sisters of Charity are deeply concerned and saddened by what has happened to the children at Madonna House. We offer our heartfelt apology to each and CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 475
12.19
12.20
every person who has suffered in a situation where we tried to ensure that they would experience warmth, care and support. 12.21 The second apology was issued at the sentencing of a male childcare worker in St Josephs in 1997: While other Orders might have found that the States of Fear programme or other publications or broadcasts was their moment of realisation, I think it was the criminal conviction of that child care worker that was a very significant moment certainly for me and those other sisters who attended and for the congregation subsequently. For us it was a brutal initiation into the reality of sexual abuse of the most depraved kind. While I would have read the Garda statements that the children made against this child care worker, it became very real when the boys were asked to speak in Court and they described a most horrific litany of terror and hurt and humiliation and pain and powerlessness. It was at that moment I think for us as a congregation it became real. I am not saying we accepted it or understood it, but it became real for us then. 12.22 The third apology was issued when another childcare worker from St Joseph's, Kilkenny was convicted. It read, inter alia: We are appalled that a care worker employed at St. Joseph's for 9 months from '76 to '77 abused children in his care and we are offering counselling services etc. He came to St. Joseph's as a qualified care worker, had excellent references from his former employees in the UK, and was interviewed by representatives from St. Joseph's and from the Department of Education ... Peter Tades2 abuse of the children at St. Joseph's has caused untold misery for the men involved. Nothing can make up for what happened to them and we deeply regret their suffering. 12.23 Sr Una ONeill, Superior General of the Congregation, told the Investigation Committee at The Public Phase I hearing on 7th February 2005 that: The issue of making a public apology didn't really arise for us. Our response to the emergence of the allegations was twofold. When we received the allegations through legal means we responded to them legally through our solicitors. At the same time we were trying to respond pastorally and that pastoral response was a continuation of what had been happening on the ground with the Sisters who had actually been in these childcare homes. Many of our past residents have maintained their contact with the Sisters who were their carers and that continued and I think some of the Orders have expressed the way in which that continued. 12.24 Sr ONeill stated that the Sisters provided two aftercare centres and a fund for past residents: past residents of our schools can apply for help for ongoing education, for counselling for themselves or their families, grants for those who are experiencing particular problems, with regard to family health, employment, accommodation, contributions towards funerals and burials for those who may not have immediate family, grants for those who may want to set up a little business or whatever, for those who are searching for parents or siblings, and for reunions and holidays. 12.25 Sr ONeill said that the Congregation contributed to the Redress Fund: we had a number of civil cases before the Court at that time ... We had had the experience, I had the experience of attending these court cases and I had seen what that
2
476
process had done particularly to the men who had taken the cases against us. I had spoken to them about the experience with both of them. I saw what it did with both the volunteers and the staff who had to testify. There was a strong pastoral reason for us not subjecting anybody to that kind of process if we could avoid it. We also felt the definition of abuse was so broad that it would invite many more cases against us and in fact that has proved to be the case. There has been a very, very significant increase in the number of cases that have come in from 2000 up to today, very significant increase for those that had come in beforehand. We also felt that if we didn't contribute to the scheme, maybe we were wrong in this, we felt that perhaps the Redress scheme would give a partial payment to the children and then they would seek the rest from us through legal means and that would have been the same reason as I have given beforehand. The same thing again I suppose the cases before the courts take a very long length of time as we had experienced and we felt that if the Redress scheme to which we could contribute could be up and running it would mean that those cases would be heard much more swiftly than in the courts. It was our view that this process would be preferable to our past residents and to the staff and sisters than going through the difficulties of the court system and also of course that the substantial amount of money that would be expended in legal fees could be avoided if we did contribute. We felt it would bring finality to all of that. 12.26 In their Final Submissions to the Investigation Committee following the hearings into St Josephs, Kilkenny and St Patricks, Kilkenny, the Sisters of Charity submitted that the sexual and physical abuse that was perpetrated on the children in these Schools was inflicted by parties other than members of the Congregation. Therefore, they stated, the issue of making a public apology did not arise for the Sisters of Charity. They stated, however, that the Sisters of Charity are absolutely and deeply sorry that any children in their care were abused in any way. They accepted that A certain number of children suffered appalling abuse. They also submit that the manner in which the Sisters organised and ran their schools led to the risks and incidence of child abuse being minimised and to appropriate action being taken when abuse was discovered.
12.27
12.28
477
478
Chapter 13
St Patricks Industrial School, Kilkenny, 18791966
Introduction
13.01 In 1879, the Bishop of Ossory, Dr Moran, acquired from the State an agricultural college known as model farm, for the purpose of establishing an industrial school for the boys of the diocese. It was situated just over a mile outside Kilkenny city, and consisted of a large house with outbuildings on about 80 acres of land. He invited the Sisters of Charity to take over the management and control of the model farm and convert it into an industrial school. On 23rd December 1879, St Patricks was certified as an industrial school for the admission of 186 boys up to the age of 10 years. St Patricks Industrial School closed on 25th November 1966. All the boys resident in the School at the time were transferred to other institutions. Later that year, with the approval of the Department of Health, St Patricks reopened as a school for children with severe or minor learning difficulties. It still provides residential care, day care, respite care and a special school for those with learning disabilities.
13.02
13.03
The children
13.04 During the period under investigation, 1933 to 1966, 1,282 boys passed through St Patricks. Of those, 1,176 were committed by the courts and 106 by other means. When the boys reached the age of 10, they were transferred to other industrial schools, usually at the end of a quarter. In March 1965, at the suggestion of the Resident Manager in a letter to the Department of Education, a new policy was adopted whereby the boys remained in St Patricks until the end of the school year.

13.05 The Sister who was appointed as the local Superior in St Patricks generally also acted as Resident Manager of the Industrial School. The Sisters in the Community worked in various capacities in St Patricks, ranging from teachers and carers to working in the kitchen and laundry. In general, the number of Sisters in the Community was between 12 and 14, although it is not clear how many of them were actively engaged in the work of the School. The Community also employed lay female staff to work alongside the Sisters. Men were employed in the farm to work under the direction of a steward. In the later years, a few male employees were employed to care for the boys, supervising them at play and taking them for walks. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 479
13.06
13.07
This Institution, like its counterpart, St Josephs, Kilkenny, was ahead of its time. Some of the Sisters of Charity received proper childcare training in a year-long course in London. The records indicate that two Sisters from St Patricks went to London for a refresher course in 1956 and introduced the groups system to St Patricks. It had already been introduced into St Josephs Industrial School, also located in Kilkenny, which catered for girls up to the age of 16. In February 1966, the Department of Health wrote to the Superior General of the Sisters of Charity at Mount St Annes, Milltown, confirming a discussion held the previous month, in which it was agreed that St Patricks would cease to operate as an industrial school and would be used on a permanent basis, as a residential centre for moderately and severely handicapped children girls and young boys. Accordingly, in May 1966 the Superior General gave six months notice of the Sisters of Charitys intention to resign their certificate as an industrial school. Thirty boys were transferred to St Josephs, Kilkenny, some to Artane, and the rest were transferred to other industrial schools. The Sisters received a list of the transfers from the Department of Education, and they wrote back to the Department in July 1966, suggesting a few alterations to the list, as some of the boys had friends and wished to be placed together. The Resident Manager enclosed the modified list for the Department.
13.08
13.09
13.10
Allegations of abuse
13.11 The Investigation Committee heard evidence from nine witnesses who were resident in St Patricks until they were transferred to another institution when they reached the age of 10. The period of residence of the witnesses in St Patricks covered the period 1943 to 1966, when the School closed. Three witnesses were in the Institution in the mid to late 1940s; the remaining six were resident in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The majority of the witnesses were in the Institution from the age of 4 to 10 years. Apart from the correspondence in the 1940s relating to childrens failure to gain weight and going barefoot, the Department did not appear to have had any concerns about this Institution. Each of the witnesses was transferred to another industrial school and had serious complaints to make about the later institution. All of them had been committed to St Patricks when they were nine years of age or younger. Their memories of life in the Institution were, therefore, vague. Nevertheless, many of them had very specific memories of incidents that occurred during their time there, which helped form a picture of St Patricks.
13.12
13.13
Allegations of physical abuse

13.14 A complainant who was in St Patricks in the 1940s recalled the Institution before it was divided into the group system: It was a kind of a it was a real institution, like. You know, like an orphanage, that's how I felt. It was a very harsh regime as regards discipline ... I remember we were in the it was like an auditorium that we were in. First thing in the morning before school we would do our catechism. We had to learn our catechism ... I remember one little boy ... he forgot his catechism. He couldn't remember what it was and the sister that was doing the catechism I can't remember, I wouldn't be sure of her name. It could have been Sr Tyra.1 She gave him, like, a beating in front of all of the boys. We were all sort of sitting there. She said "I am going to make an example of this boy and this is what you will get
1
480
if you don't remember your catechism". She beat him with a billiard cue ... Full length billiard cue, yes. That was the one major incident I can remember at that school. 13.15 He said the beating took place in the front of a large hall where all the boys could see it: He was brought down to the front where everyone could see him and the nun got this billiard cue. She made him bend over and she gave him a hell of a beating. Obviously we were terrified of seeing this. 13.16 The witness believed the boy was about seven or eight when this happened: We were ever so small. We were really tiny in size. This incident stood out in his mind: Well, I could still hear, even still today I can still hear the swish of a billiard cue. She swung it around with all her might. You could hear the wind going through the billiard cue and the little fellow screaming. It's sort of something you wouldn't forget. 13.18 That was the most severe beating he remembered in St Patricks. Lesser physical punishment was administered for failure at lessons. It was, he said, Less severe, they would get the back of the ruler. This complainant recalled being fearful during his time in St Patricks: Well, it was a very harsh regime. The discipline was, you know, they were very you were just frightened. You were just frightened because you would get a belt for any little thing. If you stepped out of line on anything or you were in the wrong place you would have to explain yourself. Just like, an atmosphere of fear, really, prevailed in the place, you know. 13.20 He recalled being punished: Oh, yes, you would get plenty of slaps. You would be slapped any time you stepped out of line. I don't know what we would do to get it. I can't recall why I would be slapped. You had to toe the line. It was a very strict regime. 13.21 He said that all the nuns were not bad and he recalled some good ones. Overall, there was strict discipline: The Reverend Mothers, they were generally austere people. You saw them just fleetingly. Of course, these places were run almost, you would say, military lines. You could feel that there was a chain of command. They were very organised, very precision running places; you know. Apart from there wasn't much stimulation or there wasn't I wouldn't say there was happy memories there, really. You were just there and that was it, like. Up against maybe the remaining orphanages we were probably living in heaven. That's all I can say. 13.22 A witness who was there in the 1940s and 1950s differentiated between the lay teachers and the nuns: You see, the teachers didn't used to really punish you. They were pretty good, the teachers were. The nuns used to come and repeatedly hit you if you stood out of line. 13.23 He said that this punishment was hard and frequent. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 481
13.17
13.19
13.24
A complainant, who spent seven years in St Patricks until he was transferred to another industrial school in the mid-1960s, described the punishment he received for bed-wetting: I suppose what I would like to talk about was the punishments I received as a child when I wet the bed ... It happened for most of my time when I was in St Patrick's. The punishment I received for wetting the bed was I was put into a galvanised bath down near the toilets, this was full of Jeyes Fluid, and a bucket was put into the bath and the water poured over my head and I was made sit there for five minutes. As I got out of the bath I was beaten on the behind.
13.25
He said that this cold bath and physical punishment continued daily, from the age of five to the age of 10: I suppose every morning when I got up it was something I knew I would have to face, this punishment for wetting the bed. There was nights where I did get up and I was terrified to go to the toilets, it was easier just to wet the bed.
13.26
During his time there, corporal punishment was administered for misbehaviour: I received severe beatings when I was, as they say, bold. One of the things the nuns sort of enmeshed into the boys, into me, when I go to [another industrial school] to the Christian Brothers, they would teach me manners. By the time it did come to the stage when we would be going to [another industrial school] we were terrified of [another industrial school] before we ever went there.
13.27
Another complainant, who was in St Patricks in the 1960s, was committed by the courts for stealing when he was eight years old. He was brought down handcuffed by two Garda. He described what happened to him: When I went out first I was frightened, I was nervous, I was crying for several nights wanting to go home and that and I started wetting the bed. The nun used to come and stick my face in it. Then she would start calling me two and three times a night to go to the toilet. That went on for quite some time there.
13.28
He explained that he had not suffered from this problem before coming to St Patricks, apart from once or twice. In St Patricks it was a regular problem. He said that he was called out regularly during the night, and that meant he did not wet every night. On one occasion, a nun tied him up with a towel because he was wetting so much: If I couldn't stay in the bed without wetting it then she would put me in a place where I could wet all I wanted and it wouldn't make any difference. That was the kind of attitude that was taken ... I went out to the toilet after the one gave me a belt on the back of the neck to get me out of the bed. She followed me out to the toilet, I was lying on the floor and she pulled my legs up on the rails and tied my legs to the rails, I was upside down. She went out and closed the door. I thought I was going to be left there all night. That was it. It could have been five minutes or five hours, I don't know. She came back in then and put me back in the bed.
13.29
Shortly after that incident, he ran away from St Patricks: It was shortly after the hanging me up by the feet, because not only was I going to bed nervous but I also was wondering was this going to happen again or would she leave me there, call me earlier, leave me there longer. I didn't know. I had to try and get away.
13.30
He got as far as Kilkenny station when he was found by two nuns from the convent and brought back: I got a hiding, he said, I got the head boxed off me. 482 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
13.31
This witness had very specific memories of incidents but was not able to remember the names of the nuns. He explained why: There was two nuns there, I dont know their names. When I was there the people that was there were just nuns. Like, there was no names, there was no it was Sister this and Sister that ... it was just Sister, Sister, Sister, there was no names that I can remember.
13.32
A witness who was in St Patricks during the 1960s recalled the punishment for bed-wetting: My memories are very limited. One of the most profound memories in my mind was being made to stand against a wall for hours and hours on end ... In the end I would end up banging my head off the wall.
13.33
He said that this standing against the wall occurred mainly during the night in the dormitory: Mostly at night-time. I remember it used to go on until it became dawn outside ... I think it was a standard form of punishment, if you like.
13.34
There would sometimes be other boys with him, and it would be a form of punishment for doing things like wetting the bed. It happened about twice a week and it was also accompanied by physical punishment: I remember a cane used to be brought down on the palm of the hand ... I remember the sound of the cane as it hit the apron as a warning sort of thing and then you got it.
13.35
When asked whether he had any happy memories of Kilkenny he said: None at all. I have no other memories of Kilkenny whatsoever.
13.36
A witness, who was in St Patricks in the 1960s for five years, recalled two lay teachers who inflicted severe punishment: Ms Adams,2 she was a very big woman. One could imagine a child of seven years of age or around that age group, this woman, we wore short trousers in the School at the time, she would open the collar of the shirt, you could have been caught talking in Mass or they would see fit at the time themselves that you would be misbehaving, she would be able to catch you by the collar of the shirt like that (indicating), with the strength of her upper hands she would be able to lift you up that way, upside down. Ms Spencer3 would give you a good beating with a leg of a chair or lump of a stick, whichever she would have at the time. That could happen maybe two or three times a week depending on what way they felt ... It wasn't an isolated, no.
13.37
He explained: Ms Adams would have held you up and Ms Spencer would have done the beating ... She held you up by the back of the collar of the shirt and trousers being short trousers, she was able to catch the two legs of the trousers and she would hold you horizontally ... Ms Spencer would beat you on the legs and on the bottom with a stick ... A leg of a chair.
13.38
This witness attended school at a local De la Salle National School. He said that three Brothers took the view that the boys from the convent needed toughening up: They always had the tendency, there was myself and another chap there, you were from the convent, you were maybe soft as in too well looked after and plenty of good beatings with the cane wouldn't go astray on you. It would harden you up and toughen you up for the outside world when you went away from the nuns.
2 3
483
13.39
Another ex-resident, who was in St Patricks in the 1950s, recalled a particular beating of a boy, during which four other boys were required to hold him down: It wasn't me that was held down. It was one of the boys that was asked to accompany the boy that had supposedly done something wrong to hold him down. One had to hold each hand and the others had to hold a leg each and the nun spanked the boy on that table like that.
13.40
He did not know what had merited the beating: No, we were playing. And the nun just picked at random, picked four boys to come in with this particular other boy.
13.41
He only recalled this happening on this one occasion, but he was unhappy about it: I didn't like the idea at all. But to say no was that was not a possibility either, you couldn't say no.
13.42
When asked whether the nun had struck him with her hand, he replied: There was an instrument used, yes ... I can't remember. I believe it could have been a stick, there always seemed to be one item used.
13.43
In the classroom the stick was used: Yes, we used to get slapped on the hand ... Three or four maybe, I can't be sure.
13.44
This complainant also recalled another incident of punishment: That happened before lights out in the dormitory. A cat or a kitten came in and was running around the dormitory, started climbing up on the curtains and that, three or four of us just hopped out of bed to chase the cat and we were caught doing that by the nun. I believe it was three or four of us, I can't remember for sure. But we were ordered down into a room with a tiled floor on it and we were asked to strip off and lie on the floor. She said she would come back later on and not to move, don't dare move. When she did come back later, I could not tell you how long it was, she gave us each a few slaps on the backside as we were lying on the floor, told us to get dressed. On the way up to the dormitory, we met the head nun and she asked the other nun what were we doing. I remember the nun clearly stating that we were knitting mats. I couldn't believe that a nun would tell a lie to another nun. He explained that the boys often knitted mats in the School.
13.45
He remembered other children being taken out of the dormitory to be punished, but he did not know what punishment they received: No, you very seldom spoke about things.
The evidence of the Sisters of Charity

13.46 In the course of her Opening Statement, Sr Una O'Neill, the Superior General of the Congregation of the Religious Sisters of Charity gave general information about St Patrick's. This included the Congregation's view as to how the Institution operated and what life was like there. She was asked about corporal punishment in the School: Well, slapping was obviously a form of punishment that was used to discipline the children. As far as we can gather it was normally done with the palm of the hand and a cane or ruler was sometimes used. 484 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
13.47
13.48
She had been unable to establish what other forms of punishment were used, such as placing the children in isolation, but found no evidence of this. In the later years of the Institution, there was a shop and the children could be deprived of pocket money. Bed-wetting was a problem: Indeed, yes, it was a problem. We are quite clear I think as to what happened. We were told that in the earlier days that any older child who wet his bed had to bring down the wet sheets to the laundry in the morning. He might be left standing beside his bed for five to ten minutes when it was discovered that the bed was wet ... Then in the play hall when they lined up to go to school they would have been called out and they would have been slapped for wetting the bed.
13.49
13.50
Children who continuously wet the bed were woken up twice at night and were given limited fluids after tea. According to Sr Una, the slapping would have stopped in the late 1950s and 1960s and, after that time, the staff brought down the wet sheets. On the general regime she said: While we know the general organisation and routine of the school it is possible that events occurred of which the sisters and the staff were not aware, although there is no evidence of this in the documentation. I think I said earlier that no matter how much you tried to care for your child or your children even in a family you cannot preclude the possibility of bullying or exploitation or whatever, as we know, tragically. The children were closely supervised but this may not have precluded isolated incidents of rough play, bullying, etc. The harshness of punishment would probably have varied depending on the personality of the staff and the sisters. I'm sure that some of the punishment must have been experienced by the children as harsh and humiliating and unmerited. Undoubtedly each child and each Sister and each member of staff has their own interpretation of what life was like in St Patrick's institution.
13.51
13.52
13.53
In their final submission after the Phase III hearings, the Sisters stated: The Committee heard evidence from nine former residents of St Patricks Industrial School. This school closed in 1966 and the Sisters of Charity were unable to respond to the evidence because, given the passage of time, there was no-one left who could evaluate or respond to these allegations by means of firsthand evidence or even by hearsay. It is undoubtedly the case that physical punishment took place in St Patricks but the Sisters of Charity are not in a position to comment on their own behalf as to what occurred. They are prejudiced in that regard due to the delay in these allegations coming to the fore.
13.54
The Sisters of Charity accept that some excessive punishments were inevitable over the years, but no record of them exists. There was no punishment book in St Patricks and no record was kept of any punishment, so no contemporary documentation is available. It is impossible, therefore, to judge the extent to which individual memories of St Patricks were typical of the Institution as a whole.
Allegations of sexual abuse

13.55 Three witnesses gave evidence of being sexually abused by three different lay workers in St Patricks, Kilkenny. All three against whom the allegations were made are dead. The Sisters submit that they have been unable, due to the passage of time, to source information to assist CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 485
the Investigation Committee with its inquiry into these allegations of sexual abuse. The Sisters did provide a list of former male staff, which corroborated one of the allegations, to the extent that the men named by the complainant were identified as being in the Institution at the time. The names recalled by the complainant were close but not identical to the names of former staff members on the list. 13.56 There were no documented cases of children being sexually abused in St Patricks. The Community annals covering the period 1879 to 1966 contained no records of any incidents of that nature. Sister Una ONeill, in the Phase I public hearing, said the first time the issue of sexual abuse was mentioned was when: in the summer of 1999 a past resident called to St Patricks for a visit ... He was trying to trace a man whom he said had worked in the laundry in St Patricks while he himself was a resident. He alleged that the man had abused him sexually and the sister undertook to try and make inquiries which she did, but no-one in St Patricks remembers the man. Thats not to say he wasnt there. Nobody remembered him. 13.57 Within a few months, the Sisters of Charity received a solicitors letter. She explained: We first became aware of allegations of abuse in St Patricks I suppose formally on 27th January 2000 when we received correspondence from a firm of solicitors regarding a past resident who had been in St Patricks and who was alleging abuse. 13.58 When the Sisters of Charity received these three complaints, they made a general review of the documents and files relating to St Patricks. Again, the results were the same: We found nothing in their files nor indeed in any of the documentation to substantiate the specific allegations that were made by the 11 men who are appearing before the Commission ... There is neither documentary evidence nor is there supplementary evidence from the sisters who would have lived there at the time.
13.59 One resident, who was in St Patricks from the mid-1940s to the early 1950s, made allegations of sexual assault against a farmhand. He told the Committee: His name was Bruce4 and he used to look after us at playtime, you know. He always carried a stick with him. There was one occasion where I had 25 on each hand, well several of us had that, we dont know the reason for it. He use to take me down to the hay barn and strip me off and he would strip himself off and, you know, I had to do things to him and he tried to do things to me of a sexual nature ... it happened six, seven and eight years old, during the summer months mostly ... I knew what he was doing. I didnt feel right, if you know what I mean, but I didnt know what it was all about. I knew I was doing something wrong. 13.60 When asked if the perpetrator was a teenager or an adult, he replied: A teenager I would say ... Small type of fellow, with ginger hair ... [It happened] at playtime. He would take me down to the hay barn. He would just come along, come with me and you knew something was going to happen and there was nothing you could do about it; you couldnt go to anybody ... I wanted it to stop, but I didnt know how to go around about it ... he was violent ... He worked on the farm and I think he used to look after the boiler house as well, He was an odd job man if you like ...
4
486
He would take me up to the hay loft, make me take my clothes off and he take his off. Hed lie me on the hay and hed started interfering to me and I had to do the same to him. He would lie on me and press up against me and all that type of thing. 13.61 In his statement, he said he had a clear impression the nuns had known what was going on. He explained: they brought a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary and we had to go into the classroom. I cant remember the nuns name but she asked me about it, did he do anything to me, did he interfere with me. I had to look at the statue and I said no because I was frightened. All I know is that there was some of us standing outside and then we was called in. We went through one classroom and it was in the other classroom you had to go in ... I never seen him after that day. 13.62 The witness was very explicit about the abuser, the nature of the abuse, and the subsequent investigation. He said he did not know in advance why he was being brought into the classroom until I got in there. The statue of the Virgin Mary wasnt normally there, no, and I had to look at it. He recalled the kinds of questions that the nun asked: I can remember asking about Bruce, did he ever do anything to me, and I must tell the truth and all this. I remember looking down and shaking my head and saying no. 13.63 13.64 I was too frightened, he added. Of Bruce, of getting beaten up and that again. From this witnesss account, it would appear that the abuse had been detected, and involved several boys, although until then the witness had believed I was the only one. When the investigation was taking place, he recalled, I wasnt the only one that went in, I think that quite a few of the young fellows went in. He could not, however, recall the name of the nun who questioned him He said, I cant remember, I have been trying to think of it. She was in charge of the classes. Another witness, who was in St Patricks from the late 1940s to the early 1950s, and who was under 10 years of age, also alleged he was abused while there. He told the Committee: there was a lay worker as they call em ... As far as I could see he was a handyman, he was working on all parts of the School. ... He was a kind of under handyman to a man called Mr. Fitzgerald5 and he used to give him his orders ... I only know his first name, Charles,6 I never knew his second name ... Well, he was always abusing boys, always. It was well known amongst the boys themselves. Mr Fitzgerald and him lived in an apartment, they both had a room each, he used to take us in there when there was nobody about and then let us out, you know, tell us to say nothing and let you out when no-one was looking. It was so frequent or so often that the boys, we used to be waiting for it to happen to see who was going to be picked next., that type of thing. You just happened to be nearest to the door or whatever, you know. Whatever opportunity he got you know it was going to happen, til one day Mr Fitzgerald caught him letting me out of the door, out of the bedroom. He came back to his bedroom for something and he actually took him out in the yard and he hit him two or three times in the face over it, and he had a black eye for weeks ... I heard Mr Fitzgerald saying, dont ever let me catch again, I told you about that ... he caught him with my trousers down and telling me to pull them up, and pushing me towards the door ... Mr Fitzgerald knew exactly what he was doing
5 6
13.65
13.66
487
and he gave him a good three or four smacks in the face ... It was the talk of the school for a week about what happened. 13.67 He was able to describe the man: At that time I would say he was about around thirtyish I suppose, thirtyish mark. I always remember his face, he was like a weather beaten fisherman, he had a wrinkly face. I could put him in his 30s, between 20 and 30, 25 and 30, something like that. Maybe more. 13.68 He did not report the abuse: there was no-one to tell because the people above you were too, you were frightened of them, you know. I mean you couldnt treat them as a mother or a father, you just couldnt run to them and say someone done this to me because you were all in the same boat. When nobody else is saying anything you dont say anything. 13.69 Despite receiving a black eye, the man continued to make advances: We always thought, has it stopped? He tried it again several times. He tried it even after I left the School. 13.70 He said he was followed some time later, when he was in another industrial school, to his home town, and Charles had got him into a field, but he had hit Charles and escaped on his bicycle. The third witness to complain of being sexually abused was in St Patricks a decade later, between the years of the late 1950s and mid-1960s. He also described sexual abuse by a layman employed by the School. He recalled: The refectory was to the left as you walked down this corridor, to the right hand side there was this door out on to the yard. When you went around the corner there was a boiler house or something and there was a bedroom in there where [he] stayed. He brought me there on many occasions and he sexually abused me. This small one bedroom, just basic, there was a boiler house, very warm building. 13.72 He described what happened: he used to take his trousers down and he would have me playing with his penis and he would play with his own penis and ejaculate over me and he would play with my penis and kiss the lower part of my body ... [I was] Approximately eight years of age or possibly from seven up to ten years of age. I am not exactly sure of the year. 13.73 When he was asked if he ever mentioned this to anybody in the School, he replied: No, because I was terrified. He threatened me that he would throw me in the furnace if I said anything. I think his reward to me he used to give me sweets. There was a three wheeled tricycle, a big one. I could have a spin on this, this was something I never had before so this was my reward ... I knew it was wrong but I was terrified. 13.74 In their written Submission after the Phase I and Phase III hearings, the Sisters of Charity wrote: In relation to St Patricks, due to passage of the time the Sisters of Charity were unable to source any information to assist the Commission in its inquiry into allegations made by a number of former residents ... These former residents were at St Patricks between 1943 and 1965. None of them ever told anyone in authority of what had happened to them and the allegations only emerged many decades later. Although one of these witnesses suspected the Sisters knew of abuse by one of the workers, there was nothing in the evidence to suggest that they in fact knew or somehow ought to have detected the activities described by these witnesses. No-one was convicted of abuse at St Patricks. 488 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
13.71
There were no records or documents of any kind found anywhere that might have assisted in an evaluation of this evidence. There was no corroboration. For the Sisters of Charity, responding to these allegations was a practical impossibility.
Conclusions
13.75
There was no culture of facilitating disclosure. Children felt afraid of telling the nuns what had happened, When nobody else is saying anything you dont say anything.

13.76 The witnesses gave varying accounts of their experiences as young children in St Patricks. They range from criticisms of the food, clothing and education to acknowledgments that life in St Patricks had positive features. All of these men had been separated from their families when they were very young, which affected them all their lives. One complainant, who spent seven years in St Patricks in the late 1950s and 1960s, said: To this very day I still don't have a relationship with my family ... As I was saying the nurturing wasn't entered into our lives as children. I felt there should have been more attachment. 13.78 He found working with victims of institutional abuse of great benefit to him: It has, yes, because I suppose, in one way, [the organisation] makes me feel a bit or maybe it's the first time in my life I was doing something from here and helping others. I can see some people coming in and I can see myself within these people where I was stuck three to four years ago. 13.79 This complainant, who alleged that he was sexually abused in St Patricks, continued to feel isolated. He said there was no-one he could look up to in the School: It takes many years in your life to sort of pick up the courage to reach out and ask for help. The only help I ever received was when I entered the psychiatric hospital and that's where, I suppose most of my life I never trusted people in authority, I never trusted Garda, teachers, judges, anybody in authority, I would never have trusted them. I suppose when you trust somebody, this would have been because of the sexual abuse, when you trust somebody what do they need in return? That would have been a big part of my pain. Now, I have reached a stage where I am not afraid to reach out and ask for help if I need help, it's okay. It's a long journey and I am still on it ... There was no-one there I suppose, I don't know, I can only speak on behalf of myself, you can never trust anybody. I just couldn't trust people. Anybody who was kind to you needed something in return and my experience within the industrial School it was sexual favours. 13.80 Another complainant, who was in the School in the 1960s, was asked if he developed an emotional bond with the woman who was in charge of his group: No, you were treated you were all treated very much the same. You got into bed and got out of bed. You were told the various routines that were there. You were never given any instructions as regards privileges or anything like that. You were never told when you actually went there that you had privileges, if you were disobedient that these privileges would be taken away ... We never knew what the privileges were. We never got them to have them taken away. 13.81 This witness had been born to an unmarried mother, and he said that, although he never wrote to her whilst he was in Kilkenny, she did visit once a year to see how he was doing. He was asked whether he was shown any tenderness, affection or encouragement in St Patricks, and he said CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 489
13.77
he had not been. He was asked whether he would describe his childhood in St Patricks as happy, and he said: It would be hard to describe what one would call happiness when one hadn't had happiness, according to the previous situation I was in. I probably would have found it a little bit more comfortable. It's very hard to describe what a happy childhood is when you come through the system up to that stage, one didn't understand what a happy childhood is. 13.82 He tried to sum up the feeling of powerlessness: I suppose if one was to look back and describe the impact on the childhood within Kilkenny, it felt very much like I am describing it from a different aspect, you were like the mouse in the corner of the room and the cat standing back a couple of feet away from you, and this cat is very powerful and tall, the mouse felt small, very weak and very vulnerable, you had no control over anything that was being applied. It would be the same with the cat, the mouse had no control when the cat was going to strike with the claw and kill it. That would be the basis of the regime. 13.83 He was asked if he could single out any nun as having been good to him: There was let me think of her name now there was a Sr Selma7 there, I remember. A round faced nun, wore glasses, she was very much into music. She would have taught a lot of bits of music, the melodica and things like that. She would have had a different approach in seeing things. She would have been a younger nun at this stage in her life and the others would have been a good bit older. 13.84 One complainant thought St Patricks was better than other institutions he went to: No, St Patrick's compared to the other institutions I was in was not bad, but it was bad enough for me to remember various things. I do have flashbacks when I come across certain smells, certain farmyard things, I do think and cocoa I can't stand. 13.85 Another ex-resident spoke of the effect of being separated from his family: Yes, I have contact. My family are like strangers to me. I mean I know them all, I know where they are, but they are just like strangers. I don't know them as brothers and sisters. 13.86 He explained that he had only made contact in the last few years and that he had learnt that his father had been a good father and did not want his children taken away: He died of a broken heart. This complainant explained what brought him to the Committee: Well, I respect the fact that Ireland is doing something about it. I do respect that and it's good to know that you may be able to stop it happening again. What happened was wrong and it shouldn't have happened. I don't blame the people that are around today for what happened then. I am glad that Ireland has been able to grasp the nettle and take it on board and try and do something about it. I applaud the Commission for that ... That's exactly why I am here, to make my point known to you. 13.88 One witness was rescued from abject neglect and brought to St Patricks. My father used to very seldom work, he's worked for farmers but very seldom. Most of the time he used to go out playing at the accordion, at the crossroad dances and the Feis Ceoil or whatever, you know. When he'd come home at night well, before he went out
7
13.87
490
he used to lock us all in the coal hole, the three of us in the coal hole, and let us out when he come in because there was no-one to look after us. One night we got out of the coal hole and I went down to the church [local], there is two churches there, there is, the Friary and the other church, it was Christmas time and I took money out of the crib, the crib money, and bought three Mars bars for myself, [and two sisters] in one of the shops. Somebody reported me buying them because they knew us around there that we never had anything and that's actually why we were sent away, I think. He always locked us in the coal hole. I remember that time when we were being arrested, that's the only time I ever remember the priest or the police getting involved ... Not out of the theft in the church but out of being seen buying the Mars bar and everybody knew we shouldn't have had money to buy them, you know ... From there on I suppose we were kept an eye on and we were eventually sent away because of that. We were always scruffy, we never washed. Our hair actually I had nits and lumps, all kind of scabs on my head when they sent me away. I can remember that, being washed and cleaned and you had your head shaven and that, you know. 13.89 On an application to court by the ISPCC, two of the children were put into care, but the oldest girl of 14 years was kept at home: There was three of us taken, my oldest sister, my other sister and me, and two of us were sent away because they said my oldest sister had to stay to look after my father, he had no-one to look after him. She stayed there to look after him and we were sent away. 13.90 He spoke about the great relief he felt at being listened to and believed: Well, the only thing I want to add really is I feel very relieved after 40 years, I used to tell people sometimes when I was drunk in the pub, you know. You would meet somebody and they would bring something up and you would kind of ... you could see it in their eyes that their weren't listening to you, they would be looking at you like a zombie, either straight through you or over your shoulder. The next day I would feel sorry for telling them. It might take me a week to get over the guilt of him knowing and telling someone else because they didn't listen. In the last two or three years since I have had counselling and all I have noticed people listening, looking at you straight in the eye and listening to you. That has made a big difference to me in my confidence. It has made me feel that I can move on, which is something I never felt before ... Belief is the main word in this, belief, or listening. Not even belief but actually listening and saying "oh, did that happen to you" ... People seem to have changed because whether they just wanted to people used to look at me and say that happened inside walls, it's got nothing to do with me. Now people are saying, they are looking through the wall or over it. They are listening to you. You are not talking gobbledegook or things like that. The difference that has made to me is unbelievable. 13.91 Another ex-resident, who used to receive occasional visits from his older sister, recounted a story that had left a lasting impression: My sister ... came to visit me there once and we were going through the School and passed by the kitchen and the kitchen door was open. There was an old nun at the sink and I remember [my sister] asking me if I wanted a drink of water. I said I would love one. She asked the nun, I couldn't believe she had the nerve to ask the nun for a drink. The nun came over and asked if I would rather have a glass of milk instead of water. I couldn't believe that she would ask me if I wanted a glass of milk. I thought that was the greatest thing ever. It's the only time I ever remember getting a glass of milk. 13.92 Although he had no memory of the food he got in St Patricks: That glass of milk sticks out like anything. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 491
13.93
This complainant said that the children were afraid to ask for a glass of water in the summertime. He said that they would get water out of the toilet cistern rather than ask for it: The cistern is the part up top that stores the water and you pull the chain, it had a chain on it. There was four or five cubicles with a partition between each. I can't remember exactly how many cubicles there were or how many toilets there were. The cubicles did not reach the wall and we used to two of us, one would stand on the toilet and the other would give us a lift up and we would sit on that partition wall and lean across and scoop the water into our mouth from the cistern. I would get down then and give him a hand to get up to get the water out.
13.94
When asked why he did not ask for a glass of water, he explained: You dare not ask, you just did not ask for things in that School ... There used to be buckets of water taken out by this man, I remember, but it wasn't often enough.
13.95
A subsequent occasion, when the witness was in another industrial school, illustrated the relationship he had with the nuns in St Patricks: Guinness put on a show at Christmas time and boys from the schools were asked to either do something on stage for entertainment for everyone. I was learning how to Gaelic dance at the time so a Christian Brother asked me if I'd do some dancing so I did. When I got back to my seat I turned around and there was two nuns I remembered from Kilkenny coming towards me. My first reaction was "what the hell have I done now?" They came over and just asked me how I was. They were a bit disappointed that I danced and didn't sing and that was all. I was glad that was all was the problem.
13.96
When he saw the nuns coming towards him, he assumed he was going to be punished for something.
Physical care
13.97 The fact that the complainants had all been in St Patricks as very young children meant that, although they had specific memories, they did not recall general conditions in the School. From the documentation, St Patricks appeared to be a well-run institution. In the first record of a General Inspection, dated 22nd April 1939, Dr Anna McCabe visited the School and found the children well cared for and well looked after. There was plenty of good quality food and the children were well clothed. In September 1940, the Bishop of Ossory, Bishop Patrick Collier, wrote to the Kilkenny Journal in support of an appeal by the Sisters for charitable funding from the people of the diocese. In that letter, he spelled out very clearly the high regard he had for the work of the Sisters: Without looking for a penny for themselves, these devoted Religious give their time and talents to their little Charges with a loving care surpassing that of natural parents. It is only just and right that their lives should be kept free from the nightmare of want, and the constant fight to pay their way. 13.100 The Bishop directed that his letter, together with a letter from the Reverend Mother, should be read at all masses. The Reverend Mothers letter was also printed by the newspaper. She explained that St Patricks had 186 children aged between one and 10. Out of this, only 135 were in receipt of the full State grant of 12 shillings per week. Another 27 were aged between four and six, and were paid for at a rate of 10 shillings per week. In addition, the School had about 24 children under four years of age, for whom the Government did not pay any grant: 492 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
13.98
13.99
These we admit when our room allows, to save them from destitution and the dangers of Proselytism. 13.101 The large number of additional children put a strain on the finances. Industrial schools were not intended for babies but this was a time of great poverty in Ireland and clearly the Sisters were faced with hard choices. The choices made impacted on the level of care available to the children who had been committed by the courts and in respect of whom funding was made available by the State. It was the children as well as the Sisters who made the sacrifices for the babies taken in by St Patricks. The next record of a General Inspection was on 10th December 1943, over four years later. Although it referred to a previous inspection dated 29th November 1942, no record of Dr McCabes findings in 1942 have survived. She described the School as well conducted, clean and the children well cared for. Her next inspection was dated 5th July 1944, and she requested that the supply of milk to each child be increased to one pint per head per day, and butter to be increased to 6 ozs. She was concerned about the lack of an external fire escape.8 She also drew attention to the fact that the children were barefoot in the playground. On 19th July 1944, the Department wrote to the Resident Manager pointing out that, although the School continued to be well conducted and the children generally were well cared for, they were not putting on sufficient weight: He is concerned, however, to note that a number of them have not been putting on weight at the normal rate. It is essential that each child should receive a minimum of one pint of milk per day and should be allowed the full butter ration of six ounces per week, and I am to request you to make the necessary arrangements to have this done. 13.104 It requested that the practice of allowing children go barefoot should be discontinued. Each child was also to be supplied with a toothbrush. This letter appears to have called into question the suitability of the Resident Manager because, two months later, it was proposed to replace her with a Sister who was 66 years old. The Department wrote to Dr McCabe seeking her views on the suitability of this appointment. Dr McCabe replied that: I am not in favour of appointing as Resident Manager old or elderly women as they are too set in their ways and are very difficult to deal with regarding new changes and innovations. 13.106 One Departmental official shared Dr McCabes concern but felt that, in the absence of any specific age rule, it would have to be agreed to. A senior official suggested a solution: I agree with Dr McCabe that this lady is rather old (over 66 years) to discharge the active duties of Manager of an institution like an Ind. Sch. An appointment of this kind is not subject to the Ministers approval, but he has power (Section 5(4) of the 1941 Act) to request the removal of a R. Mgr. on the grounds of unsuitability, and that power might be availed of in this case if it is decided that the appointment should not be approved. 13.107 The Minister suggested that this should not be framed as a formal request but should be suggested more informally. This action was followed, and a letter was sent by the Department to Managers of St Patricks in October 1944, referring to the proposed appointment: it is observed that this Sister is over 66 years old. It is considered that a person of that age would be unable to give the necessary personal attention to the duties which a Resident Manager of an Industrial School is expected to discharge. In the circumstances,
8
13.102
13.103
13.105
February 1943: the Cavan Industrial School fire 35 children died.
493
it is requested that a younger member of the Community be appointed to the position as soon as possible and that the new appointment be notified to the Department. 13.108 The appointment of the older nun did not proceed, and a younger Sister, Sr Frida,9 was appointed instead. In March 1945, two letters were sent to the Department defending the Sisters decision to allow the children go barefoot in the summer, and requesting that the Department should reconsider its direction to acquire sandals. One of these letters appears to be from a doctor or pharmacist living locally, and the other was from Dr Peter Birch, the Bishop of Ossory. In a letter which he claimed was unsolicited by the Sisters, Dr Birch asked that the edict in relation to the boys going barefoot be reconsidered. He suggested that the boys loved the freedom of playing barefoot in the summer, and most children in ordinary homes would be allowed this freedom. This was followed by a letter to the Department from the Resident Manager, where she also took up the issue. The Department consulted Dr McCabe and suggested that perhaps a compromise could be reached, whereby children over six years of age could go barefoot. Dr McCabe was not willing to stand down on the issue. Her main reason for this was the danger of infections from cuts and bruises in particular, tetanus. The Department wrote to the Resident Manager on 14th March 1945, and refused to change its position on the matter. It suggested that sandals could be acquired from the boot suppliers. In an addendum to her General Inspection Report dated 14th March 1945, Dr McCabe made an additional note dated 11th April 1945, where she noted the difficulty the Resident Manager was experiencing in obtaining sandals. She conceded that, if they could not be procured, she would make an exception to the rule for the summer months only. Despite obtaining a number of samples, and several months of correspondence, it appears that no suitable sandals could be found, and the rule was relaxed for the summer of 1945. From 1945 until 1964, Dr McCabe visited St Patricks annually and was generally pleased with how the School was run and the condition of the buildings. She repeatedly stated that the children were very well cared for and happy. Improvements to the buildings were being made constantly, and the accommodation and equipment were very good. In the late 1950s, the group family system was introduced and the children were divided into three groups. Dr McCabe described the new group system as very satisfactory. For some of her inspections, Dr McCabe did not generate a separate report but simply made an addendum to the previous Inspection Report, saying that the School was running well. She appeared to visit the School very regularly. A single report covered the period from March 1961 to June 1963, and against each of four entries is stated, Very well run school. Children very well cared. Each category of inspection is graded v.good, with Health achieving excellent. A review of the Medical Inspection files for the relevant period shows that Dr McCabe was satisfied with the health of the children and the attention being paid by the Sisters to record keeping. Furthermore, in one instance, the Sisters paid for private treatment of over 40 children. One complainant who was in the Institution during the 1940s, which was the period criticised by Dr McCabe, shared her views on the food there:
9
13.109
13.110
13.111
13.112
13.113
13.114 13.115
13.116
494
Oh, it was terrible food ... You would get kind of watery soup. There might be bits of celery in it. It used to make me almost heave. Just, maybe, bits of meat and potatoes in it. The food, it wasn't very good. It wasn't something you looked forward to. You had to take it because there was nothing else. So the food was very bad there, I thought ... there was regular meals. You got breakfast, a bit of porridge in the morning. I was like a gruel, watery porridge. Then you got the dinner. Dinner was very poor. Then you got a bit of supper, a bit of bread and jam. That's all I can remember ... Very little meat. I can't remember ever getting eggs or bacon or anything like that. I'd never known food like that. 13.117 Another complainant was also in the School during that period. He was admitted in the mid-1940s after the break-up of his parents marriage: Well, food, we could have done with a bit more, you know. You didn't get a lot for breakfast, there was only a bit of a slice of bread and a mug of tea. You had a bit of dinner then in the middle of the day and you had the same thing as you had for breakfast later on. 13.118 A witness who was there in the 1950s was critical of the food. He recalled: It was kind of a green mash, it was cabbage stalks and potatoes ... I remember getting that almost every day I was there: Green mash, bread and dripping, watery Cocoa. Egg flip, that was a kind of boiled milk with boiled eggs chopped up and put into it, you were given a ladle of it. There was other stuff they gave, castor oil with molasses in it in a big ceramic jug. The food wasn't that good. 13.119 A witness who attended the School in the 1960s was quite clear that he had fared better in St Patricks than he would have at home: I know myself that you got food on a regular basis there; you got your breakfast, your dinner, your tea and you got cocoa going to bed. Food was not a problem there, I never felt hungry there. I might have felt frightened but I never felt hungry.
General conclusions
13.120 1. It was not possible for a handful of nuns to give an appropriate level of care to nearly 200 very young boys, irrespective of how hardworking and dedicated they were. 2. There was no accountability in the administration of punishment. 3. The authorities in St Patricks failed in their duty to keep proper records. The absence of documentary evidence, accordingly, does not mean that there was no abuse. 4. Record keeping is part of the duty of care and is intended to make an institution accountable. The absence of records has put both the Sisters of Charity and the witnesses at a disadvantage.
495
496
Chapter 14
St Josephs Industrial School, Kilkenny, 18731999
Brief history of the School

14.01 The Sisters of Charity were approached by the Bishop of Ossory, Dr Moran, in 1872 and asked to care for the little homeless girls of the poor. They had been a presence in Kilkenny since 1861, caring for the sick in fever and work house hospitals and prisons. A site was purchased on the Waterford Road, and the Sisters moved into a large cottage on the grounds. In September 1873, a new building comprising a convent, school and chapel was opened. The School was certified on 22nd March 1873 for the reception of 126 girls, of whom 100 were chargeable. This was increased to 130 in 1950. The School was transferred to the South Eastern Health Board on 6th April 1999. At that time, there were 10 children in care in two houses, Avondale and Crannog. Avondale was purchased by the Sisters of Charity in 1976, and leased to the South Eastern Health Board in 1999, and later transferred to them under the Redress Scheme. The other home, Crannog, was built by the Sisters of Charity with funds raised locally and through an exchange of land between the Sisters and the County Manager. In 1995, an adjoining house was purchased by the South Eastern Health Board, and the two houses then formed one unit. The original house was transferred, free of charge, to the South Eastern Health Board in 1999. The Sisters of Charity provided a detailed description of all improvements, changes and adaptations made to the buildings and grounds between 1876 and 1984, which appears at Appendix 1. The photograph of the convent and part of the Industrial School:
14.02
14.03
14.04
14.05
497
The children
14.06 During the period under review, 1,900 children passed through St Josephs, Kilkenny. Most of the children were committed through the courts in the earlier years, and the majority came from the counties Kilkenny, Tipperary, Dublin, Laois and Carlow in the period 1933 to 1966. The Sisters of Charity also managed an industrial school for young boys known as St Patricks Industrial School in Kilkenny. It operated from 1879 to 1966. Between the period 1933 and 1966, the records of the Sisters show that 127 girls in St Josephs had brothers in St Patricks at the same time. The children admitted to Kilkenny were very young. Between 1933 and 1966, 221 of the children admitted were under five years of age; 234 were aged between five and 10; and only 101 were over 10 on admission. The proportion of very young children increased between 1966 and 1999: 362 children under five years of age were admitted, and 261 were under 10; only 112 children were over 10 on admission.
14.07
14.08

14.09 There were 18 Resident Managers in St Josephs during the relevant period. In most cases, the Resident Manager was also the Local Superior. A number of Sisters from the Community were involved in the School, and a small number of lay staff worked in the School in teaching, farming and laundry.
Sources
14.10 The sources of information were:
the evidence of former pupils; the evidence of staff members; the evidence of respondents; and the records in relation to the School which were furnished to the Commission on foot of discovery directions to the Department of Education, Sisters of Charity, Diocese of Ossory and An Garda Sochana.
The period 1933 to 1952

14.11 In the first record of a General Inspection dated 22nd April 1939, Dr Anna McCabe visited the School and was approving. The children looked happy and content, were well clothed and fed, and she was impressed with the large amount of home preserves that were used. The next record of a general inspection was 9th December 1943, over four years later, and, although it recorded a previous inspection in November 1942, no note or record of her findings in 1942 have survived. She described the School as well conducted, clean and well kept. Food and diet were described as satisfactory, and clothing as fairly good. There was no fire escape, but fire drill was practised regularly and there were six ladders available for escape from the building, which was not too high. On 23rd February 1943, 35 children had perished in a fire in Cavan Industrial School, and fire safety was high on the agenda of the Inspector at this time. On 4th July 1944, Dr McCabe paid another visit to the School and found a generally well conducted school. She did not think the children were getting an adequate supply of milk and butter and insisted that it should be increased. She was still concerned about the lack of fire escapes, and wrote in detail about the dangers for the children in the dormitories, particularly the one situated 498 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
14.12
14.13
over the domestic economy kitchen, where a fire could start. Dr McCabe found the childrens health to be good on this visit. 14.14 Following this inspection, by letter dated 5th August 1944, the Department Inspector wrote to the Resident Manager and requested that each child should receive a minimum of one pint of milk per day, together with the full amount of butter ration allowed by the Department of Supplies. Because of the tragedy in Cavan, the Department was very concerned that all children could be safely evacuated in the event of a fire. The Inspector expressed the Ministers grave concern that there was only one exit from a dormitory accommodating 21 children, which led to another dormitory accommodating 57 children, which in turn had two exits close together leading to the same corridor. It was evident to him that children in all of these dormitories would be trapped in the event of the corridor filling with heavy smoke. He requested that the Resident Manager immediately set about providing an adequate fire escape. The Resident Manager responded, by letter dated 7th September 1944, that the childrens diet had been adjusted, and she was working in conjunction with the Resident Manager in the nearby St Patricks Industrial School, Kilkenny to resolve the fire escape problem and, by March 1945, the Inspector was able to report that the fire escape was in place. In her inspection report dated 15th March 1945, Dr McCabe described the newly appointed Resident Manager, Sr Irma,1 as excellent. She noted a nurse had been appointed to take charge of the younger children and thought it was a step in the right direction. For the next 10 years, Dr McCabe visited St Josephs, Kilkenny on an annual basis. Her reports about the School indicated an exceptionally high level of satisfaction with all aspects, and she was particularly enthusiastic about the Resident Manager, whom she described as very capable and someone who had added much to the School. A very efficient nursery was established for the very small children and added much to their comfort. Two witnesses, who were resident in the Industrial School in the mid to late 1940s, gave evidence. The witnesses were siblings who were placed in care after the death of their mother. This was a period during which St Josephs was still operating as a traditional industrial school. Although both witnesses experienced feelings of rejection at being placed in care, they were also aggrieved at what happened to them whilst in St Josephs. They described the upset at being separated from their brothers who were placed in another industrial school. They both described Sr Elvira,2 who was a school teacher, as being particularly nasty and cruel. They said that she punished children for no apparent reason and also locked them in a cupboard without food or drink until late at night. This Sister left in the mid-1940s, and one of the witnesses said that things improved following her departure. Both witnesses told of lay staff who were former pupils and who were left in charge of the children. One lay staff member was described as particularly nasty and is alleged to have kicked and beaten the children. They also recalled the daily routine in the School, which involved getting up early in the morning, attending Mass, followed by breakfast and doing chores, which involved a lot of scrubbing and polishing.
1 2
14.15
14.16
14.17
14.18
14.19
14.20
14.21
14.22
14.23
499
14.24
It is clear from the annals of the Sisters of Charity that, from the mid-1940s, they were aware of the limitations of industrial school life on the development of the children. They saw that the restrictions placed on nuns by their profession narrowed their social contacts, and this affected the children who left the industrial schools knowing nobody and knowing nothing of the ordinary etiquette of social life. Change began with the appointment in 1944 of the new Superior who was praised by Dr McCabe. Sr Irma was trained in child psychology and believed that the children should be encouraged to treat St Josephs as their home, given more freedom and trusted to go out alone. These reflections by the Congregation on their own mission, together with the publication of the Cussen Report in Ireland and the Curtis Report in England, prompted the Sisters to draw up a five-year plan to implement change. Among the changes were:
14.25
14.26
14.27

14.28
Children were to be given much more freedom. Regimentation was to be abandoned, and the children were to be trusted and treated as individuals. There was to be more careful and sympathetic supervision by the Sisters, and they were to be encouraged to use their imagination with the children. Children were to be allowed out in small groups of twos and threes to replace the dreary crocodile to shop with their pocket money, to go walking and on picnics and holiday excursions. Efforts were to be made to keep siblings together, and children from the same family were to be given a table to themselves in the refectory. A new nursery unit was to be built.
Following the publication of the Curtis Report in 1946, a childcare course was set up in London by the Sisters of the Holy Child. The course was of one years duration. Initially, two Sisters of Charity took the course and, subsequently, 10 Sisters completed their training in residential care of children in the 1940s. Thirty more Sisters attended short courses in the early 1950s. Also, in the 1950s, a number of Sisters were sent by Sr Irma to train in the English Child Psychology Course. The annals note that this experience has changed the whole attitude to the treatment of Industrial School children. In 1952, the word Institution was dropped, and the School was officially known as Girls Industrial School and thereafter always referred to as St Josephs Girls School. The premises were remodelled to provide for groups, and the large group of 130 children was broken into three smaller groups of 30, providing for children between seven and 16. These groups were given Saints names, but in fact became known as sets, distinguished by different colours: red, green and blue. The younger children formed a fourth group, the nursery group. Each group had its own sitting room and separate dining room which were newly painted and decorated. From 1953, the children from fourth class upwards attended outside schools, and the annals for that year remarked: This gives them the opportunity of mixing with children who have their own homes in this way they hear something about home life.
14.29
14.30
14.31
By 1954, the School was grouped into four self-sufficient units, and Dr McCabe in her report of that year noted that the residents were mixing with children from outside at recreation and school. She felt they were much happier and lived a more normal existence. The Sisters were also very 500 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
enthusiastic about the changes brought about in the children as a result of the new system, and this was noted in Dr McCabes report dated 14th September 1954. 14.32 The group home system was recommended by the Kennedy Report in 1970, and many institutions were thereafter obliged to close or adopt the group home system. By that time, the Sisters of Charity had been operating a group system for almost 20 years, thanks largely to the vision of Sr Irma.
14.33
At an early stage the Sisters of Charity identified the fundamental flaws of the system of large-scale institutional care for young children. They also recognised the difficulties that those who took religious vows encountered in meeting the social and emotional needs of children. From the late 1940s the Sisters of Charity sent their members abroad for training in childcare and child psychology. They applied this training to their childcare practices in Ireland, to the great benefit of the children under their care.
Sexual abuse incident of 1954

14.34 On 25th October 1954, the new Resident Manager, Sr Tova,3 wrote to the Department of Education asking them to give her immediate permission to transfer two girls. She described both of them as not fit to be with younger children, owing to their immoral conduct and bad influence. She wrote: Already they have taught them sinful sexual acts, that makes it expedient to dismiss them from this school immediately. 14.35 The Department informed Dr McCabe about the application, and she left immediately for Kilkenny to conduct a general inspection. She spent two days there and, in her General Inspection, she reported in the usual glowing terms with regard to the condition of the School and the facilities for the children. Under the heading General Observations and Suggestions, she wrote, I had a long discussion with Resident Manager regarding this school. Dr McCabe made no further comment in that document as to what they discussed. In a separate 10-page hand-written report signed and dated 1st November 1954, Dr McCabe gave a very detailed account of the investigation she carried out. This revealed that a painter, Mr Jacobs,4 who had been in the employ of the Sisters for a period of 30 years, had sexually abused some of the girls. Dr McCabes report was a revelation in what it disclosed about St Josephs and attitudes to sexual abuse of children at that time. Dr McCabes report began with an account of her conversation with the Resident Manager, who had identified two girls, one aged 15 and the other aged 13, as having corrupted the whole school. Dr McCabe reported: Apparently the girls had got into each others beds and had invited other children into their beds and have behaved immorally with them. Also the Resident Manager informed me that other children in the school were also engaging in immoral practices and she named several girls.
3 4
14.36
14.37 14.38
14.39
501
14.40
Dr McCabe listed 11 children, one of whom was only eight years of age. Three of the children were 10 years old, two were 11, two were 12, and three were 13 years old. One childs age was not mentioned. One 10-year-old was described as having ... indulged in immoral practices with another young child. The eight year old knew a lot as she had been associating with boys and girls before admission. Generally, these children were described as associating with other children and being up to immoral practises. One 13-year-old, who had already been transferred to Limerick Reformatory, was described as a very bad type. Dr McCabe acted promptly and appropriately. She reported: I asked the Resident Manager to round up all the children she suspected or knew to be behaving badly and I told her I would interview each child separately and also that she was to institute one way traffic so that they could not compare notes.
14.41
14.42
Dr McCabes account of her interviews indicates that she approached the children in a friendly, non-threatening manner. The little girls agreed that they had got into each others beds but did not admit any serious misconduct. One 12-year-old, however, was more forthcoming: I questioned xx and told her I had heard she was a naughty girl and had been behaving badly in the school, pulling up skirts and getting into one anothers beds. She said she had done these things and I said to her now isnt that a silly way to behave and she agreed it was and that she would not do so again. I asked her who had taught her these tricks and she told me she had learned them in the school.
14.43
Dr McCabe continued to question the child and asked her whether anyone had pulled down her knickers. She said her mother had done it once to punish her, and then she said Mr Jacobs had done it to her. The girl then gave Dr McCabe a detailed description of what ensued, the particulars of which need not be included in this report. It is sufficient to say that the story told by the child showed that the behaviour of the employee was not a casual or chance encounter, but was the result of careful preparation by a calculating child abuser. The innocence of the child in sexual matters was apparent from her account. Dr McCabe then questioned the two girls mentioned. They both described very similar conduct by Mr Jacobs. One child said that she had told Sr Stella5 who put her to bed and shut the door. Dr McCabe then asked the Resident Manager about Mr Jacobs and was told that he was a marvellous man and the mainstay of the Institution, who had been employed by Four Reverend Mothers over a period of 30 years. He was a married man with a large family. Dr McCabe told the Resident Manager about the child [BB] who had reported the matter to Sr Stella: The Resident Manager told me that she was on holidays when that had happened but on her return she heard all about it but was inclined to disbelieve it as these children are all so well informed before they come into the school and often tell a lot of lies that it is difficult to believe them. When I mentioned XX and AA she was really shocked. I asked her why when she had heard about BB why she had not informed the Department and ask them to investigate the matter. She told me really she thought the child was imagining it.
14.44
14.45
14.46
14.47
A different account appeared in a statement prepared by the Sister in question, Sr Stella, which was taken after Dr McCabes investigations. She said that she observed a child in tears after coming from the School where Mr Jacobs had given her sweets. According to this account, the
5
502
Sister asked the child whether anything had happened in the School, and the child said no, that she had only gone in to Mr Jacobs for sweets. 14.48 There was no explanation offered for the account given by Sr Tova to Dr McCabe, which corroborated the childs story that she had told Sr Stella what had happened. Dr McCabe asked to interview the two girls for whom the application to transfer was made, and she interviewed the older of the two, who was almost 16 years old and who was working in the laundry to keep her away from the other children. She could not elicit any information from her. Dr McCabe then discovered that the Resident Manager had already transferred the second girl to a reformatory in Limerick. This child had told one of the Sisters that her uncles had been interfering with her before she had come to St Josephs. In an account of this, the nun in question stated: Then I discovered that for two years prior to her coming here she had on countless occasions indulged in sexuality with her two uncles and with other boys. We got none of those details about her when she was being committed to the school. I reported the matter immediately to Mother Vera6 who took action. 14.51 This was the child who had been described as a bad type. The Reverend Mother had telephoned the Good Shepherd Convent, a girls reformatory in Limerick, and had asked that the child be taken immediately. Dr McCabe advised the Resident Manager that what she had done was illegal and she had no authority to transfer the child without Departmental permission. On receipt of Dr McCabes report, a number of Department officials met and made the following proposals: (1) Dr McCabe was asked to visit Kilkenny and confer with the local parish priest or administrator who might wish to bring it to the attention of the Bishop. (2) The Resident Manager was to be advised to dispense with the services of the painter with least possible delay. (3) To advise the Resident Manager to immediately request the return of the child who had been transferred to St Josephs in Limerick without sanction. 14.53 The memorandum setting out these proposals went on to state: When these matters were dealt with and a further report from Dr McCabe received after her interview with the ecclesiastical authorities, the question of the transfer or the disposal otherwise of the two girls can be considered. 14.54 Statements were taken from three of the Sisters in charge of the group about the type of immoral conduct they observed over the period leading up to the investigation by Dr McCabe in November 1954. It appeared that, over a period of six months, these Sisters had noticed changes in the behaviour of some of the children. In May 1954, one Sister had observed some of the little children out of their beds at night without their night dresses on. The instigator appeared to be an older child, who was eight years old. She reported the matter to her superiors and to a priest. The children were punished, and were given stern lectures, and matters appeared to settle down in that dormitory. Nothing further happened until the next August, when she discovered two children had been sleeping together and, a fortnight later, heard a child refer to two girls going out with each other. At this point, she questioned the children closely, and discovered that one of the children had been sexually abused by her uncles before coming to St Josephs.
6
14.49
14.50
14.52
14.55
503
14.56
Sr Tova then took up the story. She said that, as soon as she discovered the childs sexual history, she arranged for two Sisters to accompany her to Limerick, and wrote to the Department for sanction for that transfer, and for the transfer of an older girl to St Annes, Kilmacud. This precipitated Dr McCabes investigation and the revelations about Mr Jacobs, which she confirmed came as a great shock, as he had been working in the School for 30 years and no-one had ever suspected him. When speaking to Sr Tova, Dr McCabe dismissed the behaviour of the other children as childish playing and did not think it merited any further action. The Sisters, however, wanted all the children concerned transferred out of St Josephs. A few days after Dr McCabes visit, one of the children was found doing an immoral act in the playground before young children, and this confirmed the Sisters in their view that all of the children involved should be transferred out of St Josephs. A meeting was held on 5th November 1954 attended by Mother General, the Reverend Mother, Dr McCabe and the Assistant Secretary to the Department. From the account of this meeting, it would appear to have been a damage limitation exercise on the part of the Sisters. The Mother General and the Reverend Mother informed the meeting that they were satisfied that, apart from the Jacobs affair, things were not as bad as originally thought. The matter had been brought under control by the removal of certain girls, diligence on the part of the Sisters, and the fact that, as a result of the group system, the evil had not extended beyond a single group. They also said that the affair in which XX had been concerned with Mr Jacobs had occurred in the summer of 1953 and not, as had first been thought, during last summer. In a complete contradiction of what had been reported by Dr McCabe, the Sisters then said that Sr Stella had not been informed that relations with Mr Jacobs had gone beyond him giving her sweets. The Sisters accepted that Sr Stella should have had her suspicions aroused when she discovered the young girl in tears so soon after being given sweets by Mr Jacobs. The meeting was then joined by the local parish priest, Fr Curran.7 He had read Dr McCabes report. He attempted to make light of what had happened, asserting that the happenings concerned were such as frequently occur in girls schools throughout the country. The account of the meeting stated: We did not accept this view, and on Dr McCabes pointing out that a peculiar vicious aspect of Jacobs depravity was that he had entered upon his misdeeds with malice aforethought, Fr Curran admitted the heinousness of Jacobs offences, but continued to make light of the misconduct of the girls amongst themselves. It had become evident that Fr Currans stand was to prevail upon the Department not to take steps that would bring Jacobs into Court. On the Assistant Secretary enquiring further in this regard, Fr Curran stated plainly that he would appeal to the Dept not to take any measures with regard to Jacobs.
14.57
14.58
14.59
14.60
14.61
14.62
He appealed to the Department on the grounds that, although Jacobs deserved penal servitude, the court case would bring the convent into great disrepute, and the children involved would have to give evidence, and this would do them immense harm. Mr Jacobs had been dismissed immediately following Dr McCabes disclosure: The Reverend Mother here confirmed that she had paid Jacobs and dismissed him, on that day, but without giving him any reason ... Jacobs had, she said, received his dismissal in silence.
7
504
14.63
When the suggestion was made by the Department that the Bishop should be informed, Fr Curran was strongly opposed to this move, as his Lordship was old and deaf and the affair would upset him. He agreed to accept full responsibility for this decision, should the Bishop ever learn of the affair. He undertook also to interview Mr Jacobs and intimate to him that he was not yet out of the woods, and that everything would depend on his future conduct. He said he would, Put the fear of God into Jacobs. The Department officials were impressed with Fr Curran: Fr Curran is obviously a very sensible and shrewd pastor and on consideration for his years we felt that a visit on our part to the Bishop was not called for. We agree also to recommend that no steps be taken towards a prosecution of Jacobs.
14.64
14.65
The meeting then had to decide how to deal with the children involved. The whole matter had originally come to light because of a request for a transfer of two children because of immoral behaviour. It was decided that these two children, together with a third girl, should be removed two to their families, and one to St Annes Reformatory in Kilmacud. It was felt by the Sisters that, with the ring leaders gone, the rest of the children would forget the episode, although strict supervision would now be necessary, particularly during meal times. The Reverend Mother then called in the four Sisters who had charge of the children and, in the presence of Dr McCabe and the Assistant Secretary, she praised their devotion but advised them and, in particular, Sr Stella that they needed to be much more vigilant and enquiring when it came to the children. The Departmental officials recommended a course of action to the Department. By letter dated 10th November, the Resident Manager was notified that one girl could be transferred to Kilmacud Reformatory and two others returned to their parents and grandparents. On 28th November 1954, the Mother General of the Congregation wrote to the Assistant Secretary of the Department to thank him for his kindness: I shall never forget your kindness during your visit to Kilkenny, and you may count on my poor prayers. Please God, the unpleasant affair is closed forever and we shall hope that there shall never be a repetition.
14.66
14.67
14.68
14.69
The matter of the children abused by Mr Jacobs was not addressed by that meeting. The Resident Manager continued to correspond with the Department about the four girls who had been identified as having been abused by Jacobs, in order to have them transferred from the School, in the interests of the other children. She wrote two days after the meeting: The other three children ... have still fresh in their memory the experience they had with Mr Jacobs in 1953. They also know about each others contact with him, which shows they must have and probably still are discussing this matter among themselves.
14.70
It does not appear from the records that the permission was granted, as three of their names appear seven months later in a report to the Chief Inspector by Dr McCabe dated 22nd June 1955. The Reverend Mother General had asked Dr McCabe to meet her in Milltown in Dublin, at the headquarters of the Congregation in Ireland, to discuss the situation in Kilkenny where, once again, she was concerned about the behaviour of six of the girls. These six girls were aged between 9 and 13, and two of them had revealed to Dr McCabe the previous November that they had been sexually abused by Mr Jacobs. They were now seen as a corrupting influence on the rest of the children, particularly their own siblings in the School. The Reverend Mother told Dr McCabe that she was concerned that the six girls were continuing to corrupt the little ones, by giving them bad example at every opportunity. Dr McCabe was surprised as to how this could be CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 505
the case if the children were contained in one group. She was informed the problem arose at recreation time when the groups mixed. Dr McCabes report was summarised in the Department of Education submission: The Rev. Mother claimed that these children were misbehaving themselves with each other and with the small children. They were, she said, giving bad example ... They were said to have taken girls from another group, brought them up into the fields and taught them wrong in the grass. When the Sister-in Charge inquired into their behaviour, one of them remarked, It was no harm. Mr Jacobs, the painter dismissed by the school the year before, had said that he was an old man and it was no harm ... Much of the bad behaviour came to light as some of the girls were preparing for their first Holy Communion and though, when questioned, there were many denials, one child told the Rev Mother that [named child] was doing it constantly. For her part, the Rev Mother considered 11-year-old [named child] the most hardened. 14.71 This characterisation of the child as the most hardened was offensive and unjust, having regard to the brutal and invasive sexual assaults she had suffered. Dr McCabe then visited St Josephs to investigate these complaints, and she made a written report on 24th June 1955. She concluded that two children (aged 11 and 13) were the ringleaders and that another (aged 13) was a good follower. The two children mentioned by her had been identified as having been abused by Jacobs in her visit in November 1954; the third child was a sister of the 11-year-old mentioned above. This 11-year-old child was described by Dr McCabe having a very bad influence and I think the youngsters are terrified of her. She seems to have great power over them. Another child was mentioned as one of Jacobs unfortunates although her name had not appeared in the November 1954 report. Dr McCabe reported: There was another child mentioned [child named](11) but she did not try tricks herself but had been one of Mr Jacobs unfortunates, but on discretely questioning her, I discovered that he had only started on his campaign when he was disturbed! 14.75 Dr McCabe discussed the supervision with the Reverend Mother and was told the staff would need to have eyes in the back of their heads to deal with the problem: I enquired about the playground there is a small patch of grass on it and here some of the performance takes place and also in a shed in the playground. Apparently the little ones play House there (as the Sisters thought) but really this performance was taking place. I consider that the nuns have slipped up in their supervision. 14.76 All the girls were part of one group, although they did interact with younger children in other groups at recreation. Dr McCabe observed: The good girls are very alert and it is really through them that the nuns got to know about the behaviour in the grass. Now there is a kind of reign of terror there and if anyone of these girls (mentioned above) approaches a child she runs a mile and screams. 14.77 Following a meeting with the Chief Inspector of the Department, it was decided to transfer nine girls to Kilmacud, and the transfer was authorised on 28th June 1955. 506 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
14.72
14.73
14.74
14.78
In her General Inspection Report dated 22nd to 23rd June 1955, the entry under General Observations and Suggestions stated: I visited this school to investigate a complaint made to me by the Mother General and Reverend Mother of the school about certain childrens behaviour in the school. As result of all this 10 girls were transferred to Kilmacud Reformatory. The chief cause of this outbreak was lack of supervision on the part of the community.
14.79
The Department of Education made observations on these events in its submission to the Committee. The Department stated: The response to abuse in Kilkenny illustrates how the Department and the religious dealt with issues of child sexual abuse at the time, in particular:
The apparent inability of the Sisters of Charity to detect what appears to have been widespread sexual abuse carried out by a long-term workman. It may not have begun with the children mentioned here. The decision of the Department, on the advice of the parish priest, not to pursue the prosecution of Jacobs, having considered the concern expressed by the priest to protect the children from further trauma as well as the reputation of the convent. The absence of professional counselling or sex education for the girls affected. The concern to remove certain girls from the school and the perception that the girls who had been sexually abused were compromised in some way. Some were sent back to their families, with no provision for helping them come to terms with what had happened.
14.80
Sr Astrid8 was appointed to the staff of St Josephs one year after these events in 1955. She confirmed that she heard nothing about the circumstances that had led to so many of the children being removed and to the dismissal of an employee who had been in the School for over 30 years. She said that no protocols were in place at any time for dealing with allegations of sexual abuse by the children, and the matter was never mentioned. This was notwithstanding the clear responsibility placed on the Sisters by Dr McCabe for failing to supervise the children properly.
St Annes, Kilmacud
14.81 The need for a dedicated reformatory for girls arose in January 1942, when two girls who had been committed to St Josephs Girls Reformatory in Limerick for serious moral offences were deemed by the Resident Manager to be unsuitable. She requested that they be immediately discharged, in order to protect the other children and the interest of the School. It was suggested within the Department of Education that the most convenient solution would be to establish a second reformatory school for girls who had committed moral offences. One of the problems this Institution could address was the question of children over the age of 12 who were in an industrial school and were found to be exercising an evil influence over the other children. Although the Minister had the power to transfer these girls to a reformatory, in practice this did not happen because the only reformatory for girls, in Limerick, would not take such children. St Annes was run by Our Lady of Charity Order, who had intimated that they intended to conduct it for the benefit of girls with marked tendencies of a certain nature. In fact, it would appear that the only cases envisaged for St Annes were where the girl disapproved of the intercourse and made a report to the Garda, or had an illegitimate baby to the public knowledge, or where her relations or friends learned of the act and reported it.
8
14.82
507
14.83
It was to this reform school that the nine children from St Josephs were sent. They were all 13 years of age or younger, and at least four of them had been the victims of severe sexual crimes whilst in the care of the nuns.
14.84 A witness who was in the School during the 1954 investigation and who was one of the girls transferred to Kilmacud gave evidence. She had not been abused by Jacobs, and it seems that she was sent to Kilmacud because her sister, who had been abused, was going there. Sharon9 was one of five children. She lived with her parents in Dublin. The home situation was not good: her father and mother had problems, there was domestic violence and alcohol abuse, and the family faced eviction. In these circumstances, the children were taken into care. She and two of her sisters were admitted into St Josephs, Kilkenny. She saw very little of her two sisters in the School. Her parents did not visit, her mother only came once. Her first memories were of being very frightened and trying to keep herself small. She hid under beds or behind her older sister. She remembers being very lonely and isolated. She had no one to turn to except her sister. Prior to the day of the transfer to St Annes, she remembered the set she was in were summoned into the sitting room. They were told that some of them had been very bold. She has only a hazy recollection of what else was said, but the outcome of it was that nine or 10 of them were segregated and not allowed to mix with any other girls. They were kept in cubicles in the dormitory and could not leave there, other than to get food and then return. She remembered Sr Ella10 and Sr Liv11 were there at the time, as were a number of other nuns. They were told they had committed mortal sins and sins of immodesty. She and her older sister were transferred, but another sister was left behind and she did not see her again until she was 16. On the day of the transfer, she was pleased because she thought they were only going out for the day, as they were told they were going to the zoo. She was shocked to discover this was a lie: it was the first time a nun had lied to her. Her transfer papers to Kilmacud described her as not of previous good character. She only saw these papers recently, when revealed by the Commission, and was deeply upset at this description, as she was only 10 years old at the time. Sharon said that the nuns in St Josephs were obsessed with religion. There was an endless litany of Mass, Novenas, Benediction, retreats, fasting, grace before and after meals, prayers night, noon and morning, and so on. She felt that the nuns were more concerned with saving their souls then anything else. They did not encourage the children to nurture friendships, and she remembered one occasion in particular: when she held the hand of a friend as they went for their Sunday walk, a nun came from behind and silently separated them. This witness remembered very little about her schooling or the teachers, other than a climate of fear in the classroom. She attended school within the Institution. Sr Liv was the schoolteacher, and she was very strict and used a stick to slap children. Sharon said that St Annes, even though it was a reformatory for girls, was wonderful in comparison to St Josephs. There was more freedom, she did not feel she was under the microscope. She never felt safe in Kilkenny, but she did not have the same feeling in St Annes. The transfer papers had described her as not of previous good character, yet the Sisters in St Annes never made her feel like that. In St Annes, she was recognised as a person. As an example, she described the following:
9 10 11
14.85
14.86
14.87
14.88
14.89
14.90
508
In a little way ... that I was walking on my first walk and Sister Ellen12, who was in charge, actually took my hand. I can never forget that moment because on the one hand what was so sinful in Kilkenny, well maybe that is going too far but I wasnt allowed to do that and here I was in St Annes and Sister Ellen took my hand. 14.91 She was introduced to the world of books in Kilmacud and became an avid reader in later life, despite having been classified as almost illiterate in Kilkenny. The food in St Annes was not good but, because she was happy there, it did not seem to matter. She is close to her sisters. She only found out in recent times that her older sister had been abused by Mr Jacobs in 1954, and that would have accounted for the complainants removal from St Josephs. Her younger sister remained in Kilkenny.
14.92
Sisters of Charity Submission

14.93 In their Submission, the Sisters of Charity disclosed that the current leadership of the Congregation first heard about the Jacobs case when they were shown documents discovered by the Department of Education in the course of investigating a complaint. Sr Una ONeill stated: There is no record of any kind in any of the files of the Sisters of Charity regarding this matter and they were not aware of what had happened until the Commission made the file available for inspection to the Congregations Solicitors in 2001. 14.94 The Sisters of Charity submitted their observations on the case. Their position was defensive. In relation to the discovery of abuse by Dr McCabe, they stated: Even Dr Anna McCabe with her medical training, expertise and the high reputation for professionalism which she appears to have earned within the Department (in the opinion of the current Secretary General), had to persist in her interviews and questioning before evidence of abuse emerged. 14.95 From the documents, however, it would appear that the abuse emerged in the course of very gentle questioning that did not depend on medical training and expertise. Dr McCabe was thorough and prepared to coax and listen: the Sisters allude to this approach as persistence. The Submission went on to state that there was no evidence that the Sisters were anything other than totally co-operative throughout Dr McCabes investigation. Given that the investigation was into the serious sexual crimes against eight- and nine-year-old children in their care, nothing less than total co-operation would have been expected. The Submission further asserted that, had the Sisters themselves discovered Mr Jacobss abuse, they would have acted as decisively as they did when it was brought to their attention by Dr McCabe. The documents indicated the abuse was indeed brought to their attention by one of the little girls, and she was not believed, and her complaint was dismissed by both Sr Stella and Sr Tova. The Submission concluded: In these circumstances any adverse finding against the Sisters or criticism of them would be unfair and unwarranted. 14.99 This Submission was prepared in 2006. It did not address the appalling plight of the children who were abused by Mr Jacobs; it did not examine the attitude of the Sisters in seeking to remove the victims to a reformatory; it did not question the integrity of Sr Tova, who gave one account to Dr
12
14.96
14.97
14.98
509
McCabe about the complaint made to Sr Stella, and a completely different one to the Department officials and the parish priest; it did not acknowledge the damage done to these children by the sexual abuse and its consequences, which included the children being isolated from their friends and removed to reformatories. Far from trying to help these damaged girls, the Sisters chose to dispose of them as bad influences. With their removal, the whole episode was expunged from the history of St Josephs. 14.100
The nuns investigated the sexual behaviour among the girls and identified those involved, but did not take the next step of asking why this behaviour had happened. They blamed the children for immorality but did not follow up the inquiry as Dr McCabe did. This abuser had been employed in St Josephs for 30 years before his activities were revealed, but the 1954 episode was treated as a single episode, and the full extent of the sexual abuse of the children was not established and no attempt was made to do so. Notwithstanding the more progressive attitude the Sisters had towards childcare, they were still unable or unwilling to believe the child who complained about Mr Jacobs. Dr McCabe uncovered the serious sexual abuse going on in St Josephs by listening to the children. The attitude of the Sisters appeared to be to blame the children for having been abused by Jacobs, and they sought to have them transferred away from the Institution. No lessons were learned from this incident. The risk that unsupervised access posed to the children, particularly by male employees, was never acknowledged or addressed. No procedures were put in place and no warnings given to staff about listening to children who complained of sexual abuse. This was to have serious consequences less than 20 years later, when two dangerous sexual abusers were employed in the School.
Alleged sexual abuse by a foster family

14.101 Annette13 was resident in St Josephs, Kilkenny from the early 1950s to the early 1960s. She was three months old when admitted into care. She described growing up in St Josephs as a sad and lonely existence. She was never treated with kindness or respect. The nuns told them they were the children of prostitutes. The staff were cruel. She was often locked up in a cubby hole as a punishment for talking in the dormitory at night, so she learned not to speak. It was a frightening experience, and she was afraid to do anything other than pray to get out. She was often hit with a leather strap. She was in the red set, a less favoured group in St Josephs. She thought the food was horrendous: she described getting cocoa, and lumpy porridge for breakfast. She never felt full and was always aware of being hungry. She liked school, however, and was a good student. In May 1961, she was released by order of the Minister for Education to Mr and Mrs Lacey.14 She was nine years old. She remembered being sent to the Reverend Mothers office and there was a couple sitting there. They seemed quite old to her and they were introduced to her as her uncle and aunt. She went out with them for day trips initially, and then she spent a couple of weeks over Christmas. The Sisters asked her how she got along and, at that stage, she thought it was
13 14
14.102
14.103
14.104
510
fun being brought to the seaside and given treats. She recalled the food they gave her was very rich and, because they gave her toys, she thought she had landed in heaven. 14.105 She testified that, when she was released into the care of the Laceys, things changed. She was sexually abused by Mr Lacey. He built a corrugated shed in the garden which he used solely for the purpose of raping her. He told her it was a playhouse. She believed Mrs Lacey knew what was going on as, after being raped, she told her to have a bath. It happened two or three times a week in various places, wherever they were living at the time, until she managed to get away from them at the age of 15. The couple travelled all over the country and spent time in Kildare, Wicklow, England, Wales etc. When she was 11, they were living in Northern Ireland, and she managed to run away at that stage, but was caught and returned to them. After this incident, she was sent by them to England to live in Mr Laceys brothers house, and the couple later followed over. During the 131 weeks 2 that she spent there, she recalls regularly being given a drink and falling asleep; she would wake up next morning, partially clothed and very sore. She complained to Mrs Lacey, and was punished by being hit with a leather and locked in a cellar, or she was deprived of food. She was forced to work for the couple in all of their various enterprises, including an ice cream parlour and a restaurant. Annette now knows that the Laceys were not in fact married. They were of different religions and, although one of the conditions for them to be allowed to foster her was that they would protect her religion, they never brought her to mass or church when she was with them. Annette was not aware until recently where she read the documentation that the Sisters were opposed to her going to the Laceys.
14.106
14.107
14.108
What the documents revealed

14.109 The documents reveal mistakes by the Department of Education. The story is recounted here in some detail as an example of how failure to follow up and supervise children placed in foster care could leave them totally unprotected In November 1960, Mrs Lacey wrote to the Rev Mother in St Josephs, having been referred by an official from the Adoption Board Dublin. She and her husband were anxious to have a little girl, as they had no children of their own. She described herself as having the means to give the child a good home, a mother and fathers real love, and a good education. She said they were both Catholics and in good health. The Laceys said they were married in 1928, 33 years prior to the application in 1961. Sr Klara15 wrote to a senior official of the Department of Education on 25th November 1960, telling him of the request from the Laceys. She explained that Annette could not be adopted legally, as her mother was alive but untraced. She suggested that perhaps the Laceys could be her Godparents, and sought his opinion on this matter. She hoped he could help find the mother so that her consent for adoption or the Godparenting arrangement could be sought. Sr Klara wrote again on 3rd December 1960, advising the official of the Department that the Garda had had no success in tracing Annettes mother and wondering whether she should go ahead with allowing the child go to the Laceys. She suggested getting a reference from the parish priest before making a final decision. At this stage, the Laceys had brought the child out for outings and were keen to take her. The official advised her to get the reference from the parish priest before allowing it to go ahead.
15
14.110
14.111
14.112
511
14.113
On 10th December 1960, Sr Klara wrote to Mr Wade of the Department of Education as follows: Since our conversation (phone) I have received a letter from my friend to whom I wrote for information re. couple who wish to adopt Annette. It seems this party is only here for the past few months from England. The husband is a lapsed Catholic, and the wife a Protestant. As we have been warned that couples are going through Dublin trying to adopt children, and from the information just received, I dont think it wise to go any further unless we get a very definite proof of the suitability of the Adopting Parents.
14.114
Sr Klara wrote again to Mr Wade on 12th December 1960, expressing her continuing uneasy mind regarding the couple who wished to adopt Annette, and seeking his advice as to whether she should pursue the matter with the parish priest in the UK, as the couple had only resided four months in Ireland. The parish priest in Terenure had vouched that they were attentive to their Church duties in the four months that he knew them and were worthy and reliable people. Sr Klara came under increasing pressure from the Laceys, who were indignant that Mr Wade, when he interviewed them, had information to suggest that they were not Catholics. Mrs Lacey denied this and said they attended Mass every Sunday. Sr Klara remained very doubtful about them. On 15th December 1960, in an internal memorandum to the Inspector in the Department of Education, the author advised that he had spoken to the parish priest in Terenure, who recommended that the child should be allowed out to the Laceys for Christmas. In a letter dated 15th December 1960, Mrs Lacey wrote to the Department: Dear Sir, As requested I herewith make an application for permission to have Annette the child from St. Josephs Industrial School, Kilkenny for the Christmas period. My husband and I have already had her out for one day and we have asked the Mother Superior to let us have her with us, as we are giving a childrens party at our cafe, and the Mother Superior said as far as she was concerned it would be alright. The child having no parents or relatives we are both willing to help her in every way possible, by giving her a good home, with a Mothers and Fathers love, bringing her up in the Catholic faith, and educating her in the best possible manner. We are quite aware on account of her age that we cannot adopt her legally, but are more than willing to be her Foster Mother and Father. My husband being Managing Director of a large firm tells you that we have the means to do the very best for the child. Trusting you will grant us this permission. Yours Faithfully Mrs Lacey
14.115
14.116
14.117
14.118
A note on the letter said: Phoned Sr Klara and informed her of our inquiries. She is now satisfied to release child for Xmas holidays and we are to [make] ... inquiries regarding Lacey couple with a view to advising mgr on question of release on supervision certificate TOR 16/12/60. On the same document, the particulars with regard to her release for Christmas were recorded, together with a note of an interview with the Laceys on 16th December 1960: Interviewed Lacey couple wife claims to be a convert and husband to have been reared a catholic but has not been assiduous in the practice of his religion. He undertook to produce their marriage certificate. 512 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
14.119
14.120
In a letter to Mrs Lacey dated 8th January 1961, Sr Klara informed her that Annette was safely back in Kilkenny and had been telling the Sisters about the wonderful time she had with my Mammy and my Daddy and thanking her for giving her such a good time. The child obviously had an accident whilst with the couple, because Sr Klara also noted that on the following day she would take Annette to the Dr. to have the stitches removed D.V. It appeared from the documentation that followed that the Laceys travelled to the UK in early January 1961, to expedite references and other matters required for the adoption of Annette. Mr Lacey had written to his parish priest in Oldham in England, seeking confirmation that he was married in the Catholic Church. The parish priest was unable to provide this, but said he saw no reason to doubt Mr Laceys word that he had been. There was also a short note from another parish priest where the Laceys resided for six years, which said the couple were known to him and well suited to have care of a child. On 8th February 1961, the Laceys contacted the Department to press for the release of Annette, citing the fact that they had purchased a new house and were anxious to purchase furniture with Annette in mind. This prompted Mr McDevitt to write to the parish priest of Oldham to seek confirmation that the Laceys had married in the Catholic Church sometime in 1928, possibly around May. He could not provide the exact date. He did not receive a reply and followed this up with another letter on 9th March 1961. This letter was returned to Mr McDevitt with the following handwritten note by the parish priest: St. Marys Oldham Dear Sir, As far as we can ascertain the facts given by Mr Lacey are true and to be believed. Sincerely yours, P.P
14.121
14.122
14.123
14.124
14.125
The Laceys followed up with another letter to the Department on 16th March 1961, pressing the Department for a decision about releasing Annette to them. They felt they had provided more than enough information to the Department about themselves and asked the Department to give the matter urgent consideration. In a detailed report in April 1961, concerning the Laceys application, Mr Wade wrote to Mr McDevitt, Inspector. He set out the circumstances of how the couple came to Ireland in 1960 and immediately contacted the Adoption Board with regard to taking a child into their household. They had been referred by the Adoption Board to St Josephs, Kilkenny as an institution that might be able to supply their want. Sr Klara understood from this referral that they had been vouched for by the official in the Adoption Board, and she introduced the couple to Annette. Mr Wade had met the couple on several occasions as they had called into the Department. On the surface, they appeared pleasant but he had a number of concerns. First, Mr Lacey admitted to being lax about his religious duties; secondly, Mrs Lacey protested that she was a convert to Catholicism but was hazy as to the date of her conversion from the Protestant religion; and, finally, although she could give the location, she was not sure of the exact date of her marriage to Mr Lacey. Added to this, Sr Klara had her own doubts about the couples religious persuasion and had been warned that couples were going about the country seeking to adopt infants therefore, she was not prepared to make the decision on her own authority. Mr Wade concluded that the application should be refused on the grounds that the whereabouts of the childs mother were unknown and her consent would be needed for final discharge, coupled with the vague replies by the Laceys about their marriage. This report was passed on to the Secretary of the Department by Mr McDevitt on 26th April 1961, with a long handwritten note attached. He described the case as somewhat difficult, because the CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 513
14.126
14.127
Laceys appeared on the face of it to be the ideal couple to be given the care of the child, were it not for their difficulties in verifying their pasts so far as religion was concerned. He had spoken with them and felt they were not being frank about the matter, although very anxious to get custody of the child. The clergy in Britain had not been helpful in clarifying the matter. He concluded his report with the following: Considering (1) that the childs parents may still be and probably are alive; (2) that the child was committed on grounds which are now invalid and that some doubt may therefore be entertained as to whether the Minister has power to discharge her on supervision certificate (tho I think he has), and that there is the possibility of endangering her faith, the balance of argument appears to be against acceding to the application and I so recommend. If approved, I suggest that refusal be communicated in interview. 14.128 In an internal memorandum to the Minister dated 28th April 1961, the author (T.O R) also expressed some reservations but, overall, was in favour of letting the child out to the couple. His reasons were that, in the first instance, it was against the Constitution for the child to be detained by them under any circumstances. Secondly, two parish priests were satisfied that the girls religious affairs would be catered for, and so the Department was covered from the moral point of view. As for his own conscience, he would be guided by the fact that nothing but good could come from her being with this couple. He recommended that the child should be allowed to live with them on the understanding that either parent could come forward to claim her back at any time. She was discharged by order of the Minister to Mr and Mrs Lacey on 5th May 1961. The following additional particulars were recorded: Annette was discharged on May 5th 1961 by Order of the Minister of Education to Mr and Mrs Lacey, [address redacted]. Mr McDevitt and the Resident Manager (Sr Klara) were not in favour of this adoption. 14.131 On 11th May 1961, Mr and Mrs Lacey were informed officially in writing that, after very careful consideration, the Minister for Education had now ordered the release of Annette to their care with the condition attached that, if her parents at a future date claimed custody, they would have to immediately surrender the child to them. Mr McDevitt signed the letter on behalf of the Minister and also asked the couple to keep him informed of any change of address made by them. The Resident Manager in Kilkenny was informed in writing at the same time. Precisely one year later, on 11th May 1962, Mr Wade received a memorandum from one of the Departmental officials who said he had called on Mr and Mrs Lacey at the address where they were living when Annette was discharged to them. He spoke to the woman who now occupied the house. She told him the Laceys had left a long time ago, had sold their business and now had either a pub, or a fish and chip shop in the Southeast. Enquiries were made by the Department with the Garda in the Southeast on 22nd May 1962, and neither Annette nor the Laceys had ever been heard of. Eventually, the Garda located the Laceys. The Department noted that they should have been informed of their change of address by them, and it was felt that enquiry should be made in regard to Annettes welfare, spiritual and otherwise. This note is dated 28th May 1962. Sometime between June and September 1962, Mrs Lacey wrote to the Reverend Mother in Kilkenny from her address, expressing a wish to return Annette because she said Annette was lying, stealing and using bad language. They had had to remove her from her school in a local 514 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
14.129 14.130
14.132
14.133
14.134
convent, as she was not making any progress, and she was a constant worry to them and clearly did not appreciate what was being done for her. 14.135 Sr Hanna,16 who had taken over from Sr Klara, informed Mr McDevitt about the letter and advised him that she had written immediately to Mrs Lacey to tell her the child would be welcome back in St Josephs and was expecting her back any day. This prompted the following letter to be sent by the Laceys to the Department on 3rd September 1962: Dear Sir, Some time ago I wrote to the Rev. Mother at Kilkenny School stating that we were very disappointed in Annette, the way in which she had turned out, by stealing things, and above all telling lies, not thinking they would inform you in this matter. However, since we have warned her that she would have to go back to St. Josephs she has improved considerably, and is now attending the local school. I know in her heart of hearts she does not want to leave us, or to go back. Owing to my writing this letter we have had a visit from the Rev. Mother, and she advised us to have an older girl who was well moulded and whose character was well formed. She thought and we both agreed with her, that it would help Annette very much to have somebody like that, as we feel it would break her heart to be sent back now after 18 months and we do not wish to part with her unless she commenced her bad ways again. As you know we are in a position financially to have another girl, also good accommodation to accept an older girl like the Rev Mother suggested and we would train her to take a good position in life. Trusting you will be able to arrange this for us ... Yours faithfully ... 14.137 This letter was sent to the Resident Manager for her observations on the matters raised in it. Sr Hanna called the Department and spoke to Mr Wade, who noted her views in a handwritten note dated 18th September 1962: Sister Hanna called on 12/9/62 to discuss this case. She is very worried about Annette and would like her to be anywhere but with the Laceys, whom she considers unsuitable to rear the child. Her offer of a second girl to the Laceys was made in the hope of getting Annette back and she had no intention of fulfilment. 14.138 Following this memorandum, it appears that Sr Hanna and Mr McDevitt paid a visit to the Laceys and told them that Annettes grandfather was seeking custody, and Rev Mother wished to have her returned to the School by Sunday 7th October. The Laceys wrote to the Department on 1st October 1962, expressing this as a great shock to them, as they had been told 18 months previously by the then Rev Mother that she was the only child available in Kilkenny that had no parents. They insisted that she did not want to leave them and had come to know them as her parents. They said they had inquired about the grandfather, who was out all day and only returned late at night, so she would not get the care and attention she needed. They also said that Mr McDevitt had indicated that it was a matter between Reverend Mother and themselves, as he could not force them to give up the child. They pleaded with the Department to assist them in the matter. The Department acknowledged receipt of the letter on 2nd October 1962 and advised that inquiries were being made. The question is whether anybody spoke to Annette. The person who was best placed to deal with any reservations about the Laceys was Annette. There is no record of any communication with Annette, either by the Department or by the Sisters.
16
14.136
14.139
14.140
515
14.141
The next piece of correspondence on file is four months later, dated April 1963, and was a note from the Laceys to the Department advising them that they were returning to England on 9th April 1963. They explained the short notice due to delays in finalising deals. They expressed their intention to send Annette to a Catholic boarding school as soon as they were settled in England and gave their new address. They told the recipient not to worry about her, as she would be brought up as a good Catholic and with a good education. A break in the documentation then occurred, but Annettes evidence was that, throughout this time, she was subjected to severe, continuing sexual abuse by Mr Lacey, both in Ireland and in England. Four years later, the following letter was received by Rev Mother in St Josephs, Kilkenny from a Church of Ireland Vicar based in Northern Ireland dated 22nd May 1967, and read as follows: Very Rev and Dear Mother, I wish to make enquiries about a child who was possibly fostered or adopted from your Orphanage some years ago. I have only the scantiest details concerning her and I would be grateful if you could assist me in disseminating the facts. 1) Childs name: Annette Surname unknown Age: 14115 2 2) Party who fostered or adopted her: Mr Lacey and his wife Roman Catholic and Church of England respectively. Occupation: Cafe caterers since 1966, formerly Industrial Caterers in England or Wales some years ago. The child has not practiced her religion since coming here nor has she been encouraged to do so. She has been absent from school since February at her parents connivance. I fear she may be in real danger from lack of proper supervision. Parents unsuited to the task of properly rearing the girl. If this child has ever been in your care, and if you still have any legal authority over her would be grateful if you would let me know. The local Divisional Welfare Offices are also interested in the child and have left the matter in my hands to see if something could be done for the child before it is too late. Please forgive me putting such a problem before you If you have any facts concerning her I would be grateful if you would let me know at your earliest convenience. Respectfully yours Vicar
14.142
14.143
14.144
The Resident Manager sent a copy of the letter to Mr McDevitt on 4th June 1967, reminding him of their reservations about the couple at the time and recalling that they had done their best to prevent her leaving St Josephs. In January 1968, concern for the welfare of Annette moved from Northern Ireland to the UK. The Childrens Officer in the UK wrote to the Education Officer in Belfast, reminding him to follow up with the Department of Education in Ireland concerning this child. The inquiry was forwarded to the Department sometime after 15th March 1968. On 30th September 1969, when Annette was 17 years of age, the Childrens Officer in the County Borough of [place redacted] wrote to the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools with the following information: 516 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
14.145
14.146
Dear Sir, Re: Annette 1.11.52 The above named girl was placed by you in 1961 from St Josephs School, Kilkenny into the care of Mr and Mrs Lacey who were, at that time, living in, Co Dublin. After moving from place to place in Ireland the Laceys eventually came to live in [the UK]. Over the last few months, they have alternatively written letters complaining about the girls behaviour and asking for help and others to say that everything was alright and they preferred not to be visited. On the 13th August, 1969, Mr and Mrs Lacey deposited Annettes belongings in the Department with a final letter to say that they wished to have no more to do with her. As we have no background knowledge of this girl prior to her going to live with the Laceys, I would be most grateful for any information you could supply regarding Annettes case history before this time. Yours Sincerely [Childrens Officer] 14.147 The Department did not respond until four months later and, in a letter dated January 1970, they stated: Dear Madam, With reference to the enquiry you made in September last in regard to above-named girl, I am directed to inform you that according to the records of this office, Annette was an illegitimate child, the daughter of [details redacted mother later re-married] ... The couple separated. It is believed they are in England, but the address of either party is not known. Annette was baptised a Roman Catholic. She was committed to the care of St Josephs Industrial School, Kilkenny by order of Court [date redacted]. She remained in that school until May 1961, when she was discharged to the custody of Mr and Mrs Lacey, then living in Co Dublin [address redacted]. The Laceys later went to reside in England. It was made a condition of the discharge of Annette to their care that should either or her parents at a future date claim custody of this child the Lacey family would have no option but to surrender her immediately to such parent. I am to express regret for delay in replying to your letter and that we have no more useful information to give. The Resident Manager of St Josephs School, Kilkenny, may be able to supply more details in the case, such as Annettes progress at school, names and addresses of relatives or friends in this country. Your Faithfully 14.148 14.149 By this time, January 1970, Annette was almost 18 years old.
The documents in this case disclose that considerable thought was given to placing the child with the Laceys but they do not record that the essential requirement of supervision, namely communication with the child, took place.
Complainant account of sexual abuse by fostering family

14.150 Another complainant was five years old when she was committed to St Josephs with two of her sisters, and remained until she was 16. She was from a Traveller family and could remember many arguments between her mother and father as a young child. She did not remember the court experience, but her sister told her that she did not think the family understood that the committal would be for such a long period. Her brother was committed to another industrial school CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 517
at the same time, and she never saw him during those years. Her father was killed in the late 1960s. She has since been told by relatives that he was disappointed and remorseful that he never managed to get his family out of St Josephs. 14.151 This witnesss main complaint was that she had been sexually abused by the father of a family to whom she was sent for holidays. She stated that children in St Josephs went out on holidays on a regular basis. They were sent to families for the month of August. A large group of them would go up to Dublin on the train to be met by their host families at Heuston Station. She was sent to a family who had no children of their own. Initially, she was sent with another girl from St Josephs and it was all very exciting. She was paraded around by the couple to their friends houses and shown off as the child they had for the month of August. The husband started to abuse her. It started with touching and eventually led to more serious abuse. She cannot understand how the family were not vetted. She was discharged to them, and the abuse continued when she lived with them full-time. When she started dating her boyfriend, she told him what was going on and he confronted the mans wife and told her what her husband was doing. She said she had been taken out of school because the couple permission to have her discharged to them. They suggested that she could work for them in their office in Dublin. She stayed with them for about a year. She remembered an occasion when another pupil of St Josephs, who was staying with a befriending family, called to visit her. The father attempted to abuse the young girl, who had to lock herself into a bathroom. The girls discussed it afterwards, but the complainant was the only person the girl spoke to. She had very few vivid memories of her initial period in St Josephs. She was committed with two of her sisters. The three of them were put into the green set in the charge of two nuns, one of whom she described as evil. The other would hit the children across the ears for no apparent reason. She went to school in St Josephs primary school and then to the Presentation Convent in Kilkenny. She did well in school and was quite disappointed when she was taken out just before she was due to sit her Intermediate Certificate to stay with the foster family. She believes that she was treated differently from other girls in St Josephs because of her travelling background. For example, she suffered verbal abuse, being called tinker by other girls. Her sisters received similar treatment. The nuns knew it was going on, but there was no attempt to stop it by the Superiors or those in charge. She also felt her family were discriminated against when they visited her. She has heard from other family members that her father often cycled from [another county] where he worked to see them but was turned away. She made inquiries about this from family members, and she found out recently that her father had tried on several occasions to get the children out of the School. For the past 30 years she had believed that her father did not care about his family. It was only when the documents were shown to her in the process of this inquiry that she learnt the true situation and it has angered and upset her greatly. She believed that, if he had succeeded in getting them out, they would at least have been loved. They never got any love in the School. As a result, she found it difficult to this day to hug her own children. She maintained some contact with her friends from St Josephs, and has attended some reunions to see them. She does not regard it as her home nor does she go to see the nuns: she attends just to stay in touch with the girls, as they have a lot in common. Most of the girls in her set, the green set, have very bad memories but she believes that girls in other sets would have different 518 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
14.152
14.153
14.154
14.155
14.156
14.157
14.158
memories. In particular she says that those in the blue set were made. The sets were segregated: every child in the green set felt they were nobodies, and she believed that was the reason why they were in that set. Most of the girls in it came from dysfunctional families. The red set was not too bad they were half right. The blue set was a totally different scene, because they got all the extras. Sr Astrid had overall responsibility for all sets, but was specifically in charge of the blue set. Once assigned to a set, there was no possibility of moving to another. 14.159 She thought Sr Astrid would like to believe that she was close to all the children, but that was not the case. The children tried to keep in with her but Sr Astrid had her own cronies and pets, and she gave them extras. It is difficult to see how the nuns in St Josephs could have known if a befriending family was abusive unless the child herself told them. However, they should have taught the girls to recognise inappropriate behaviour and to report it. Differential treatment between the units is a major criticism of the institution.
14.160
14.161
Positive witnesses
14.162 The first positive witness proposed by the Sisters had no contact with her natural parents and was almost two and a half years old when she was placed in St Josephs. In her early period there, she was cared for in the nursery but she had very little recollection of that time. During the rest of her period in St Josephs, she was part of a group known as the blue set, which had Sr Astrid in charge, assisted by a number of lay staff. There were 30 girls in the blue set, ranging from five to 16 years. Once a child was assigned to a set, it was usual for her to remain there. She cannot remember any occasion when a child was transferred from one set to another, nor does she think it would have been possible to ask for a change of set. The different sets would get together during recreation in the playground, and when they went to outside school after the age of 10 or 11. They also came together in the recreation hall for an hour or two of television, as there was only one television at that time. Each set had its own dormitories, subdivided into senior and junior, its own sitting room and refectory. Daily life in St Josephs involved a routine of getting up in the morning before school and carrying out a number of chores. The older girls would have some duties in looking after the younger girls, to ensure they were getting their meals or that they were going to church in the mornings. Children did the washing up after meals. On reflection, she was very satisfied with the food. They had porridge for breakfast, and dinners varied with food such as stews, corned beef and smoked haddock. They had a drink of cocoa after school, and tea, bread and jam at teatime. The older girls sometimes helped out in the nursery, especially during the summer months. Before she left, she had also worked in the bread room. She went to school in St Josephs until the age of 11, and then on to the Presentation Convent in Kilkenny, which was a 20-minute walk away. Two or three girls walked to and from school together each day. They returned home for lunch. She had no problems in school and made a lot of friends, especially through sports. She did not recall any difficulty integrating with the girls in the Presentation Convent. She was encouraged by the Sisters to stay on and further her education, and she believed herself and two other pupils were the first girls to do their Leaving Certificate from St Josephs. She passed it and went on to Secretarial College and subsequently had a successful career. She made good friends within St Josephs and was still in contact with many of them. They were scattered widely around the world, in London, Germany, Italy and the United States. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 519
14.163
14.164
14.165
14.166
14.167
During the summer months, there were outings to the seaside. In August each year, St Josephs closed and all the girls went out to families. She went to a family in Sandymount, Dublin, which she found a very positive experience. She described Sr Astrid as a very gentle person who did not slap the children. She hardly ever raised her voice to anyone. She was very good to them. The main means of discipline was to remove privileges, such as the film night or the weekly pocket money. That was the situation in the blue set. From what she has heard, the experience in other sets was a little different: control was achieved more by voices raised in temper, and the atmosphere may have been different, as some of the nuns and staff were more strict. She has not heard any complaints about physical punishment, but she knew that bed-wetters probably had to wash their own sheets. She did not remember any children in her set ever being put in a cubby hole as a punishment. She did recall that there was a cubby hole which held sweeping brushes and the like. She had heard of the threat of being put in a cubby hole in the other sets, but not in her set. She did not know what went on in other sets. Overall, she found the experience in St Josephs a good one, but she did find life a bit restricted. This may have been for security reasons, but everything, even hours of play, was regimented to a certain time. She has kept contact with Sr Astrid over the years. When she left St Josephs, she stayed in a house in Dublin which was solely used for the purpose of looking after the girls when they arrived in Dublin. She has attended reunions in Kilkenny every two years for the past 14 or 15 years. The second positive witness had been in care from the age of four, and was 12 years old when she arrived at St Josephs in the mid-1960s. From the start, she thought it was really good and settled in easily. She was placed in the red set with her sister, who was two years older. Mrs Dunphy17 was in charge and personally she found her nice, but thought she could be strict, and some younger children may have found her a bit cross. Discipline was enforced by stopping pocket money or not allowing children to view the film. She remained in the red set until she was transferred to the green set two years before she left St Josephs. She did not ask for the transfer, but was pleased with the move and thought there was a very good atmosphere in the green set. Sr Tilda18 was in charge and she was kind to all the children. She was older by then and was allowed a lot more freedom. The girls were friendly and she was very involved in sports. She won All-Ireland camogie medals. She believed that every opportunity was given to her to develop in St Josephs, and she felt she did a lot better than many children from ordinary homes. During summer holidays, she went to a befriending family who were extremely kind to her. She did her Leaving Certificate and said that anyone inclined to do so was encouraged to study and do well. Subsequently, she did a commercial course in Dublin in a private college and eventually got a good job. She thought the driving force for all of this was Sr Astrid. She believed that St Josephs, Kilkenny would have been a role model as a school, had it remained single sex. The introduction of boys was not good for the School. One of the things she missed about the School was not being part of a family and not being shown affection. She found things were sometimes a bit rigid, but felt this was mainly because there were a large number of children to cater for.
17 18
14.168
14.169
14.170
14.171
14.172
14.173
14.174
14.175
520
14.176
Sr Astrid was asked whether she agreed with the suggestion that those who were in the blue set, which was under her immediate control, fared much better than the children in the other sets. Sr Astrid insisted that she did not treat any of the children differently. The groups were very separate. She did not accept that the blue set got things that the others did not. She said that the Superior gave all the groups the same things, but thought that perhaps sometimes someone from her own family might come and give her group extra sweets and things like that. She agreed that Traveller children could be called names by the others, as they had a lot of children round the place and name-calling was inevitable.
14.177
The group care system could not replace a loving family, but it did offer a more childcentred environment where children were encouraged both socially and educationally. Attending the external school worked well for the children, and there is evidence at this time of good integration between the children from St Josephs and the local community.
The Group Homes

14.178 The system of grouping children into smaller units appeared to work reasonably well throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s. In 1966, however, a decision was taken to close St Patricks, Kilkenny as an industrial school. It had catered for boys up to the age of eight and had been run by the Sisters of Charity. Many of the residents of St Josephs had brothers in St Patricks and, indeed, this was one of the reasons the Department of Education gave for recommending the transfer of the boys to St Josephs. Accordingly, 28 boys were transferred, to be retained until eight years of age. The sudden increase in numbers, and the integration of boys into the School, caused problems for the management. In an undated document entitled Report for The Department of Education, which would appear to have been written in late 1969, the case was made for the need for St Josephs Industrial School to move toward forming group residences in the community. The report stated that, during the year 1968/69, the Sisters experienced much unrest and disturbance amongst the children. It manifested itself in a variety of ways, such as absconding and repeated burning incidents. According to the report, these problems arose mainly because of lack of proper accommodation, and proper staff and recreational facilities, which were all put down, in turn, to lack of financial assistance. The report further stated that, in an effort to cope with this problem in May 1969, a small group of the most disturbed children was placed in a house in Kilkenny donated by Bishop Birch, under the care of one of the Sisters, and the children were treated in every respect like an ordinary family. This project, initially an experiment, was a great success, and it became clear that efforts like this would eliminate many of the problems in St Josephs. According to the report, the Sisters consulted with experts in the US and Britain, and set about reorganising the Institution in groups/units as close as possible to the ordinary family. Four groups with 16 children and three groups with 10 in each were formed, with children of both sexes, ranging between the ages of two and 18 years. Children under two years were kept in a separate nursery. Each of the separate groups was staffed by three adults. Alterations were made to the Institution and the old national school to accommodate the groups, and two dwelling houses were purchased. The Sisters asked the Department to assess the situation as soon as possible, as the Congregation could not meet all the costs involved, and needed assistance with reconstruction work, the purchase of recreational facilities and transport for the children. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 521
14.179
14.180
14.181
14.182
14.183
On 12th September 1969, Bishop Birch followed up this proposal by formally requesting the Department for financial assistance to enable St Josephs to carry out the programme of reconstruction which would bring the Institution in line with modern thinking on childcare. The Sisters went ahead with their plans. They altered the existing buildings and acquired two houses in a nearby housing estate, half a mile away, to set up two family-type houses. This was done without sanction from the Department of Education, which was presented with the problem of whether to finance the venture, when it had not sanctioned it in advance. The Department of Finance refused the request for extra funding. On 11th September 1969, Mr Wade from the Department travelled to Kilkenny with Mr Madden to inspect the unauthorised works which were at that time being carried out, and about which Dr Birch and Sr Wilma19 had called to see the Secretary of the Department. Mr Wade set out the situation as far as he saw it: To fully understand how the nuns in charge of the Industrial School came to find themselves in their present plight the following comment may be of assistance. Since the appointment of Dr Birch as Bishop of Ossory there has been a convulsion in the social conscience of the laity and clergy in the Diocese of Ossory resulting in a welter of activity for the underprivileged from child adoption to geriatrics embracing also itinerants. Nuns, priest and students from St Kierans Seminary are involved to a greater extent than ever before among the poor and needy. A social centre has been erected on the grounds of the community, a nursery to facilitate adoption work has been approved by the Department of Health and will also be erected on the convent grounds and there are itinerants settlement schemes, meals on wheels, companions for the old etc etc. Add to this a favourable comment from a member of the Committee on the Reformatory and Industrial Schools on the standards of St Josephs, advance information from a member of the Committee that the group system of caring for children would be a recommendation and that grants would be available for building to assist in the changeover from the present methods and the stage was set for the nuns to run off in all directions without an Architect (except for on one item, play space and enclosed gymnasium) without authority, without money or the overdraft facilities to pay for the job.
14.184
14.185
14.186
He was sorry for the situation the nuns found themselves in, describing it as quite pathetic. He felt that: the Bishop abetted by a young radical member of the community played a large part in creating this situation and it seems the Department will have to come to the rescue by making a case to the Department of Finance for an ex gratia grant.
14.187
He also advised that the new Resident Manager needed to be told that policy making and major decisions in matters that concern the welfare of committed children had to have the approval of the Minister, who alone was the responsible authority in these areas. The case was made by the Secretary of the Department of Education to the Department of Finance on behalf of the Sisters of Charity in a memorandum dated 7th October 1969. It stated that St Josephs, Kilkenny was a well-run school and, in the view of the Minister, would always have a place in the field of childcare: not alone for its success as an industrial school, but, because of the considerable increase in costs if it were to be replaced by an institution under lay management.
19
14.188
522
14.189
The Department of Finance refused to make the payment, as provision in the Vote for the Office of Public Works for school building was already over-expended. The Department of Education wrote again to Finance on 2nd March 1970, advising them that they had a surplus of 15,000 from the Reformatory and Industrial School budget, and wondered if they could pay this out to the Sisters. The Department of Finance gave their sanction and the money was paid. A General Inspection was carried out on 7th November 1971; the previous one had taken place on 8th May 1970. The Inspector noted under Sanitation, Health, Food and Diet that it was quite obvious that these were given top priority by the Sisters. He found the premises in good condition, and the changeover from institutionalisation to the group home system was well underway. The staff were hard working and forward thinking. The Sisters were planning to acquire the use of another nearby house for adolescent boys, as the Resident Manager was concerned about these children. He also met and had a long discussion with Sr Wilma regarding the childcare course in Kilkenny. Mr Crean inspected the School on 10th November 1972 and was very pleased with the School. He made the following general observations: In the last 4 or 5 years the Community at St Josephs has spent generously and constructively works of improvement are still in progress. It is a wonderful home for the children in care it caters for 100 children on average boys and girls from the age of a few weeks, up to 17+ in the case of girls and 15+ in the case of boys.
14.190
14.191
14.192
14.193
Mr Crean praised the way in which day-to-day problems were courageously tackled. The education of the children was given top priority. Thirteen girls and one senior boy were in different boarding schools. There was never a failure at Intermediate Certificate, Leaving Certificate or Group Certificate level. Much of the correspondence in 1973 between the Department of Education and the Resident Manager related to finance. It is clear from this correspondence that the Department officials were very much on the side of the Sisters of Charity. As far as they were concerned, St Josephs was one of the most progressive schools in the country and had carried out extensive works of adaptation and purchase of property to form self-contained group homes. Since 1968, the Sisters had expended a total of 80,000, and the State had contributed 24,000 towards it by 1973. The Department was critical of how the Sisters had embarked on such a substantial programme of development, but was in no doubt that the augmented capitation grants were being put to proper use. The properties acquired were vested in the Sisters and not in the State, and the Department of Finance was reluctant to give grants towards the acquisition of property on which it would have no claim. Two Department officials visited Stanhope Street Convent in Dublin on 18th May 1973, where the Sisters were proposing to set up an aftercare hostel for up to 13 senior girls from Kilkenny who would be commencing work or continuing with studies in Dublin. The estimated cost was 21,000. They agreed to recommend to the Department that they should provide 15,000 toward the project. In the final paragraph of the memorandum of the visit, the following is recorded: Sister Astrid adverted also to problems relating to emotional disturbance among children in the Kilkenny home. It was agreed that this was a growing problem in these homes which needs consideration. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 523
14.194
14.195
14.196
14.197
It appeared from the correspondence between Sr Astrid and Dr Paul McQuaid, Consultant Child Psychiatrist, dated 12th December 1973 that he had found that a significant number of children in care in St Josephs were seriously or moderately disturbed. This led to a visit to Kilkenny by a Principal Officer from the Department on 29th April 1974. He met with Sr Astrid, Resident Manager, the Programme Manager for the South Eastern Health Board, and the Bishop of Ossory. The focus of the visit was to assess the needs of the School and future trends in dealing with the problem of emotionally disturbed children in the home. The first report from Inspector Graham Granville was dated 22nd February 1976, and was very positive about all aspects of the School in terms of facilities and care for the children. The Sisters complained to him of lack of follow-up by social workers who requested places for children, had them admitted, and then failed to keep in touch with the child; and they sought Mr Granvilles assistance in tackling this problem. Around this time, the School was experiencing problems with some of the children, in particular with getting them to attend the local schools and to be accepted there. The problem with local schools came up for mention again in a General Inspection Report dated 27th January 1977 carried out by Mr Granville. He noted that, although the children attended local schools and were allowed to join in school activities, there was not good contact between the local schools and the residential home with regard to the childrens progress etc. In a handwritten note on the end of the report, it was decided that the Schools Inspector would meet the Bishop and Sr Astrid to try and resolve the education problem. The author noted that Kilkenny was by far the biggest residential home in the country, and perhaps the unwieldy size was responsible for some of the problems. Mr Granville concluded his report in January 1977 with the following comment: This residential complex has a great deal to offer the South Eastern district if it is properly supported and guided.
14.198
14.199
14.200
14.201
Allegations of sexual abuse in the 1970s

14.202 In January 1995, a Garda Sergeant, stationed at Kilkenny Garda Station, began an investigation into allegations of sexual and physical abuse at St Josephs School in Kilkenny. In the course of his enquiries, he heard allegations of severe sexual abuse, including buggery, and of physical abuse against two men who had been employed in St Josephs during the 1970s. The first of these allegations involved Thomas Pleece,20 who was employed in St Josephs from 1972 until 1976, when he was summarily removed by the Resident Manager following complaints by boys. The second man was Peter Tade,21 who succeeded Mr Pleece as a care worker in St Josephs in 1976. Thomas Pleece admitted sexual abuse in St Josephs, as well as in St Augustines where he had worked previously, and also to abusing two boys fostered by him after he left St Josephs. He was indicted on 271 counts and received a 10-year sentence in October 1997. Peter Tade was indicted on 10 counts and he was sentenced to four years imprisonment in June 1998. According to the Congregation,1995 was the first time it became aware of allegations of sexual abuse in St Josephs.
20 21
14.203
14.204
14.205
14.206
524
Thomas Pleece
14.207 After the decision to take in young boys in 1966, the Department of Education Inspectors recommended that St Josephs should employ male staff to help care for them. The first of these carers was Thomas Pleece. The decision to close St Patricks and transfer the boys to St Josephs caused a number of problems for St Josephs. The girls resented the presence of the boys in the School, and it was difficult to keep boys and girls separated at night. Thomas Pleece completed the course and, on completion, was highly recommended to Sr Astrid, who appointed him with sole responsibility for 16 teenage boys. He was House Parent for Summerhill, one of the group homes in St Josephs. According to Sr Una ONeill, who gave evidence to the Committee as Superior General of the Congregation: He was the House Parent for Summerhill so he would effectively have been in charge of the house. The manager would have visited as she did fairly regularly all of the houses each day and every evening. She and all concerned thought it was a great achievement to have a man in charge of the boys. In his professional child care capacity it was assumed that he would act as a father figure and role model for them. 14.210 This was a view echoed by Mr Graham Granville at the time, who wrote of Mr Pleece in an Inspection Report of November 1972: ... he is young probably 28 years single and naturally at ease with youngsters whilst unobtrusively maintaining discipline. If he applied and were selected for Oberstown, I understand he would be badly missed at St Joseph's. 14.211 Thomas Pleece said in evidence that he first became involved with childcare when he started to work in St Augustines Special School in Blackrock. He admitted to sexual abuse of boys in St Augustines. He had formerly worked in a factory. From Blackrock he went to the childcare course in Kilkenny in 1971. He said that he did not have the necessary educational requirement for the course, and was therefore surprised to get an interview. He had to provide them with an essay/project to satisfy the educational aspect. He also had a formal interview with three or four persons on the panel. He had the requisite two years experience in childcare in St Augustines, and he provided three references. He was one of only three lay persons who attended the first course in 1971. The other 17 participants were Religious. The college organised a placement for him in St Josephs. He lived in St Josephs during the year of the course and, in return for his accommodation, he did a couple of hours each evening doing games with the children. He also attended short placements in the probation service and in a school in the UK as part of the course. At the end of the year, he was offered a job in St Josephs and took up the position in September 1972. He explained: I was approached by Sr Astrid and asked if I would be interested in taking over the group of boys in St Joseph's, that they were going to put all the boys together and once the holidays came in June, that they would be splitting that mixed group up and changing that unit to a boys unit and I could take it over as the team leader there, if you like. Mr Pleece said that, although he would have had regular contact with social workers, volunteers and two other Sisters in the Community who worked in the unit, it was Sr Astrid who was most in contact with him: CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 525
14.208
14.209
14.212
14.213
I suppose Sr Astrid was the one that would have had her finger on anything that was going on in the unit. You must remember that Sr Astrid was a mother figure to all of the children in St Joseph's. The boys, I mean, idolised her. When she came over, like, it was an event every time because they all wanted to speak to her and give her a hug and whatever, you know. She was wonderful with the children. 14.214 Thomas Pleece left St Josephs between September 1973 and April 1974 and went to work in Drogheda, where he was offered a job which paid slightly better than St Josephs. He paid one visit to Kilkenny during the time he worked in Drogheda, and became aware that the children were not happy with his replacement. Sr Astrid met him and they discussed the possibility of his coming back. He agreed, provided she could match his salary in Drogheda. He returned to Kilkenny in April 1974 and remained there until 1976.
Sr Wilma
14.215 From 1964, Sr Wilma lived in St Josephs Convent in Kilkenny and worked in Kilkenny Social Services. She had daily contact with the Sisters in the Community. She assisted in the establishment of the childcare course in Kilkenny in 1971. She recalled that Thomas Pleece attended the first childcare course in Kilkenny and was the first layman to do the course. She interviewed him with all the other applicants. He satisfactorily completed the course and she was sure she would have recommended him to the Sister in charge in St Josephs, although she did not remember specifically doing so. She recalled he was a good student and had impressed on the course. Once Thomas Pleece started to work in St Josephs, she had no contact with him. She may have met him once or twice in the grounds but had no real contact. In her Garda statement, she recalled he had an Alsatian dog which she was terrified of. She did not remember discussing his progress in St Josephs. Sr Astrid did not tell her about his dismissal or the circumstances surrounding it. She did not know why he left and never enquired about it.
14.216
Richard Evans22
14.217 Richard Evans did part-time work at St Josephs five nights per week. He helped the children with sport and homework, and did leisure supervision. He recalled the boys coming to him with allegations that they were being interfered with by Thomas Pleece: It was in the spring of 74 ... After a lot of conversation with the boys, a lot of cajoling, they came to me and they were saying that Mr Pleece was abusing them. The way they put it was he was interfering with them when they were in bed at night ... Joe,23 Simon24 and Justin,25 and there was a few more of them. They didn't want to go to tell anybody because they knew they were going to be punished if they did. They were going to suffer repercussions. Because there was an awful lot of abuse going on that I knew nothing about, physical and sexual, and I knew nothing about it. I wouldn't have known anything about it at the time. 14.218 The boys complained again: After about two, three weeks they came back to me again and they were afraid to go at the start and said they wouldn't go to report it to anybody, there was no one going to listen to them. I said, 'What's the harm in going over and telling the Reverend Mother anyway? ... They were complaining about Thomas Pleece interfering with them in bed, their private parts, interfering with them, taking them out of bed and bringing them to his
22 23 24 25
This This This This
is is is is
a a a a
526
room and that sort of stuff ... I listened to what they were saying and I said, We'll have to do something about it. We need to tell somebody this is going on, that it needs to stop. Even at that stage they still weren't prepared to, you know, to make it public that they were going to go to somebody in authority ... I think a lot of it was the fact that if Thomas Pleece found out about it they would get more abuse, they would get physical abuse. 14.219 Mr Evans was aware that someone in authority needed to be told what was going on: I asked them would they jointly come over to see the Reverend Mother and I would make an appointment for them to meet her. I don't know what night of the week or anything. Joe was the only one who decided he would come with me. We rang the doorbell over in the main building and I looked for the Reverend Mother and we went into the parlour, Joe, myself and the Reverend Mother. I can remember it so clearly. I sat on the left-hand side, Joe sat in front of me and the Reverend Mother was on my right. I would say for half an hour, three quarters of an hour we talked about the general interference and Joe, as a young lad of that age, was not prepared to turn around and say he's touching me or feeling my private parts or naming the parts or what he was doing but he was interfering is the way he put it. It was vague enough and probably gives as much as I would give at that stage either. 14.220 He said that Sr Astrid listened, but asked no questions about what was being communicated to her: She listened, didn't say an awful lot. I vaguely recollect that she said, Well, I'll look into it. There was something of that something close to that ... I think the words she used were that I will do something about it or I don't know what way it was put but we left saying there was something going to happen. That was my impression leaving. 14.221 Mr Evans recalled saying something to Thomas Pleece after he had spoken with Sr Astrid: ... But after the occasion of going seeing the Reverend Mother with Joe I remember saying something Now, I can't remember exactly what I said, but I think I said it to Thomas Pleece that if you are interfering with them boys, You shouldn't be interfering with them boys, or You should leave them alone or What the hell is going on or something of that nature I said to him. His reaction was What business is it of yours? or You are only such and such, what the hell are you going to do about it? or something like that. 14.222 Whatever was said, Thomas Pleece resented Richard Evans after that: Now, Thomas Pleece always had an Alsatian and that was his main threat with everybody, the Alsatian would be put on you or set on you if you opened your mouth or stepped in the wrong place. He did resent me after that. It was quite obvious that he must have known or found out we had gone to the Reverend Mother and he wasn't happy about it. I don't think after that occasion that I ever spoke to him after that. 14.223 Mr Evans described Sr Astrid as being ferociously calm about the whole thing. She did not say much or express horror at what she was being told. He was, however, quite sure that something would be done about it. He said: I think I spoke to [another nun] at one stage about it. Sr Astrid had maintained that she had no recollection of anyone speaking to her about sexual abuse by Thomas Pleece, consequently Richard Evans was asked to spell out how explicit he had been with her: Well, I originally stated to the Reverend Mother that Thomas Pleece was putting his hands in under the bedclothes in interfering with the boys private parts and that Joe was there to make a complaint. He didn't particularly say that Pleece was catching them, feeling their penises or anything but he was interfering with them under the clothes, their private CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 527
14.224
parts I think is the way he put it. But there was no mention of other than that. From what has transpired since that, there was an awful lot worse than that going on. But that didn't come out with Sr Astrid that night. 14.225 Though the boys had not been explicit even with Richard Evans, he had no doubt that what was happening was wrong and had to be stopped: I knew it was wrong, what was going on. What they had said to me was wrong, it shouldn't have been going on there. 14.226 He went on to say: I didn't even understand up to the time we had gone to the Reverend Mother the full extent of what they were saying to me. I only knew that interfering with boys in bed was wrong and an older man interfering with boys was wrong. But the full extent of it I definitely would say I didn't understand. 14.227 He was asked whether he had considered going to the Garda, and he replied: No, not at that time. Ever since that, ever since I have heard that there was nothing ever happened about it, and the extremes of it and the extent of it, I live with the fact that I made major mistakes myself as an individual of 20, 22 years of age, I should have went, instead of going to the Reverend Mother, I should have went to the Garda, I should have went to the Health Board, I should have went a whole lot of places, but I didn't. 14.228 The evidence of the witness was that the fact that the boys were being sexually interfered with was undoubtedly stated to Sr Astrid and that she would have understood that there was more going on than was being described to her. That meeting between Joe, Richard Evans and Sr Astrid took place at the beginning of the spring of 1974, some months after Thomas Pleece had been brought back to Kilkenny from his eightmonth period of employment in Drogheda. Richard Evans did not work in Kilkenny during that summer of 1974, and when he returned he was not assigned to Summerhill, the house run by Mr Pleece. Instead, he worked in the main house with younger boys. He said that he did not enquire whether things had been resolved but, some time later, he met one of the boys in town on Saturday. He asked him has anything happened up there since?, and the boy responded, Not a thing, it got worse. Mr Pleece continued to work as a care worker in Summerhill until 1976.
14.229
14.230
14.231
The evidence of Thomas Pleece

14.232 Mr Pleece gave his own account of the circumstances of his leaving in 1976 to the Investigation Committee: Well, I was just reading Sr Astrids account of what happened, but her recollection is a little wrong in some respects. First of all, a problem had arisen in St Joseph's that I didn't know about. There had been a complaint made against me. I didn't know this, but one morning I got a message from Sr Astrid that I wasn't to send the children to school, that I was to the bring them over to the convent, to the parlour. There was two big rooms in the convent. Which I did, and other members of staff were there as well. There were two other members of staff. So they were all there. All the boys were all put into the one room. I wasn't told anything of what was happening. The boys were being brought into another 528 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
room one by one. I was later to learn that because I was the last person to go in and it was Dr Black 26 that was interviewing each boy and every member of staff. 14.233 Thomas Pleece said that Dr Black asked him how he was getting on, and whether he had any problems in the School. He then told Mr Pleece that there had been a complaint against him: He told me that there was a complaint. He didn't say what the complaint was, he just said there was a complaint and that they were looking into it. He found that he didn't find any credence in what the lads had said, and everything was fine, you know. 14.234 Mr Pleece went back to his unit after this interview with the doctor and resumed his duties. He added: It was about a week later or maybe two weeks later, I am not 100% sure, that I met Sr Astrid in the yard. She told me that what she said was the boys were saying things about me and that she wasn't very happy and that she had actually she had said after the interview with Dr Black, that next morning, she did mention about that there was a complaint made but that she thought everything was going to be okay now because Dr Black had vindicated any allegation that was made. 14.235 Mr Pleece stated to the Committee that he presumed that the complaint made and referred to by Dr Black and Sr Astrid was one of sexual abuse: You know, this is where the misconception was. I thought she was talking about the sexual abuse. I never dreamed that she was talking about physical abuse. She was under the impression, obviously, that it was physical abuse, you know ... I just took it for granted that one of the lads had said that I had abused them. Especially if it was Joe. 14.236 Mr Pleece asked Sr Astrid whether he was being sacked: I asked her did she want me to leave and she said, well, it might be better for everybody concerned if I was to leave. I did say to her, Are you sacking me, am I getting the sack? Because I wouldn't have been too happy about that. She said, Well, no, if you are resigning, that's fine, there's no problem. 14.237 At all times, Thomas Pleece presumed that Sr Astrid had received a complaint about sexual abuse. He had been sexually abusing the boys and, in particular, had abused Joe, who he knew had made the complaint. It was only when he heard Sr Astrids statement to the Commission, that she had had no complaints of sexual abuse, that he questioned this assumption. At no time was the subject matter of the complaint raised with him. All he was ever told, by both Sr Astrid and Dr Black, was that a complaint had been made. No details of the complaint were ever spelt out to him. He described his interview with Dr Black: He was asking general questions about the discipline in the unit and how I disciplined the boys, and what kind of problems were arising out of that. I was talking to him for about half an hour, you know. 14.239 Thomas Pleece agreed that the whole investigation conducted by Dr Black was a momentous occasion and he was worried. He had refused the older boys permission to smoke and that had caused problems but, because the complaint against him had come from Joe, a boy he had actually abused, he presumed the issue was sexual abuse: Well I had understood that that's what he said to Sr Astrid because I was just putting two and two together when she said to me there was a complaint. There couldn't be anything else because there was no physical abuse.
26
14.238
529
14.240
Although Thomas Pleece disputed the extent of the abuse he perpetrated on Joe, he acknowledged that abuse had occurred: You see because I went into Joes room and I fondled him, and I committed abuse on him, when I was confronted by Sr Astrid by a complaint I immediately thought that's what it was, that Joe had said to her that I had gone into his room. So he was right, like, that part of it was right.
14.241
It was Thomas Pleeces understanding that Dr Black had been asked by Sr Astrid to investigate allegations of sexual abuse, and had found no evidence against him. Dr Black did not spell out the complaint against him, and Thomas Pleece was afraid to ask. Thomas Pleece denied absolutely that he ever physically abused boys: Well, in regard to physical abuse I mean, I don't mind the boys claiming that I abused them sexually, you know, the three lads that I involved myself with. But for any boy to say that I physically abused them, I deny that completely.
14.242
14.243
He said he only ever laid a hand on boys for three reasons: one, if he was in danger from another boy; two, if a boy was about to self-harm, he would restrain him; and three, in self-defence, which he said never arose. Therefore, when Sr Astrid tackled him, the thought of physical abuse did not enter his head because he had not done it. The only thing she could have been talking about was sexual abuse, which he had done. Thomas Pleece left St Josephs within a day or two of Sr Astrid speaking with him: But I know that she was calling a halt, anyway, to me working with the boys. I would have put the lads to bed that night and I would have said that I was leaving. I think that there was only two weeks or something to the summer holidays or something like that.
14.244
14.245
He was paid up to the summer and was given to understand by Sr Astrid that he would get a reference. Although he left believing he had been accused of sexually abusing boys, he stated that he left on good terms. He came back to reunions at Christmas and the like for years afterwards, and the invitations for this were extended by the Convent. He said: I know I left under a cloud in Kilkenny. But I left, as I thought, on good terms. Thomas Pleece continued in jobs that brought him into close contact with vulnerable young people and children. In September 1977, Thomas Pleece got a job in a probation hostel in Cork which accommodated boys in their late teens. He assumed they would have sought a reference from St Josephs for him there, although he did not see one. He and his wife applied to foster two young boys in 1978. They were vetted before being accepted. He said that it never crossed his mind that the fact that he had been asked to leave for sexual abuse in Kilkenny was a disadvantage to his application for foster children: We had a number of interviews with the social worker, I don't know how many there was now, but there was quite a few, and we were in the office another day and there was maybe three people there, and we had interviews with the head social worker, and the social worker that had been interviewing us. That was about it. They passed us to foster.
14.246
14.247
14.248
14.249
He assumed that they would have contacted his previous employers but, as this was during the period when he still had regular contact with Sr Astrid and the convent, he was not concerned that he would not be given a reference by them. 530 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
14.250
He did not link his sexual abuse at work with fostering children: You see those kind of things didn't enter into one's head at the time. Abuse wasn't I didn't see it as abuse ... Well, the only thing I was to reassure myself was that it wouldn't happen again, ever. That's the assurance I had to give myself, in any other job, because I wasn't going to let this happen again because I knew I wouldn't survive a second one ... Yes, in a job situation. That I would never, ever cross the line again, you know, which I didn't.
14.251
Mr Pleece subjected the two fostered boys to a horrific ordeal of sexual abuse once they had become teenagers, but he did not abuse again, according to himself, in his employment. In his Garda statement, he admitted to abusing the boys from when they were about 11 to 15 or 16. The hostel in Cork closed down in 1979, and Mr Pleece was offered a job in the detention centre run by the Oblate Fathers in Lusk and for this he required references from previous employers. He gave St Josephs as a reference because he had asked Sr Astrid if there was going to be a problem with references before he left and he understood from her that he would be okay on that front. At the interview for Lusk he was asked why he resigned from St Josephs and explained it by saying he resigned to take a year out from childcare. He worked in Lusk until 1985, when it closed down, and then was out of work for a period until he took up another post in Ballymun, also in childcare. He worked there for two years. Then he worked in a home for children in Dublin as Assistant Manager, and was arrested while still employed there. As well as the two boys he and his wife fostered, they also adopted two children. Again, they were subjected to a rigorous investigation process before the adoptions were sanctioned. His employment record would have been made available, but it is not clear whether any direct contact was made with St Josephs as to his suitability.
14.252
14.253
14.254
Evidence of Dr Black
14.255 Dr Black worked for the Brothers of Charity in Belmont Park between 1972 and 1976, and his job at the time involved the assessment of children with behavioural problems. This work brought him in regular contact with St Josephs, Kilkenny, and he knew Sr Astrid well. He estimated that he would visit St Josephs about 15 times a year. He had no recollection of being asked by Sr Astrid to conduct an inquiry or try to find out why some of the boys in Summerhill were unhappy. The mode of inquiry that Thomas Pleece said had taken place would have taken much longer than an afternoon visit. He could not have questioned more than one or two boys in that space of time. As far as he was concerned, he never carried out this alleged investigation. On the question of the more casual inquiry suggested by Sr Astrid, he said that he would not have used the phrase that she had nothing to worry about. He would have said that he could find no evidence of the alleged offence. In addition, Dr Black said that he would most likely have written a report, which he would have left in St Josephs. Although he visited a number of residential schools during his time as a psychiatrist, Dr Black said that he had never had a complaint of physical or sexual abuse from any child ever. He said that this was not surprising to him, as he did not really get to know the children well enough for them to trust him.
14.256
14.257
Sr Astrid
14.258 Sr Astrid stated that she had no memory of a meeting with Richard Evans and Joe in which Thomas Pleeces sexual abuse of the boys was raised. She remembered that Joe came to see CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 531
her once or twice, but did not remember Mr Evans accompanying him. She did not disagree with Mr Evans recollection, as she believed he was an honest man, but she did not remember it herself. 14.259 Sr Astrid was asked if she made Thomas Pleece aware in 1976 that Joe had made allegations of a sexual nature against him, as stated by him in his Garda statement. She replied, No, that never I have no recollection of that. Thomas Pleece also said that Dr Black was brought in to conduct an inquiry. She was asked if she had brought Dr Black in to carry out an inquiry. She replied: Dr Black came regularly to St Josephs, he was just on his way to the he called regularly to see us in St Josephs, to see had we any problems and usually he saw some of the girls. At that particular time the lads were inclined to run away a bit and come back to me and tell me he was tormenting them or at them. Well, I said wouldnt now he was come at that particular time and I said would you have a chat with the boys and see how they are, have they any special reason for running away. 14.260 She agreed that a number of boys had complained to her that Thomas Pleece was at them, which she understood to mean beating them or punishing them. On the particular occasion when she dismissed Thomas Pleece, it was one boy who came. That boy was Simon. She was surprised by her use of the term abuse in her Garda statement: abusing is there, but at that stage I knew nothing about abuse, sex abuse; thats the truth. She realised something was wrong, in the sense that she thought the beating was more than usual. Simon told her we are not able to stick it. To the question why Thomas Pleece was asked to leave, she replied: Well, when Simon told me that day in the yard, you know, that it was very bad. We cant stick it, I said, Well Ill have to go to Thomas Pleece myself. I went to Thomas Pleece that very day myself and said to him you cant stay here any longer because the boys are very unhappy. 14.263 Sr Astrid was asked how often she had spoken to Thomas Pleece about being too rough with the children before she had dismissed him. She said it happened a few times: You see I'd have to go over to him when the lads were run away or anything and they'd be coming to me. I'd have to go over and say " ... there is something wrong with this the lads shouldn't be afraid of you and you shouldn't be beating them". Then eventually he'd take them back, sure some of them wouldn't even go back I would have to take them down to one of the houses. One particular lad, he said "I won't go back to him now, Sister". I said, "all right, sure come on for a night or two but it will be harder on you then when you do go back." But after a few days talking to him and that I'd take him back. 14.264 Sr Astrid said that this had probably happened a few times and remembered big groups of boys being involved. Notwithstanding her decision to remove Thomas Pleece immediately, Sr Astrid was adamant that she had not been told of sexual abuse. In 1979, less than three years after Mr Pleece had been dispatched from St Josephs, a letter was sent to Sr Astrid by the Department of Education looking for a reference. It said: I wish to refer to Mr. Thomas Pleece, who has been offered a post as Housemaster in Scoil Ard Mhuire, Lusk, Co Dublin. Mr. Pleece has claimed service in your residential home from 1972 to 1976. Perhaps you would be good enough to state; 1. the nature of the post occupied by Mr. Pleece; 532 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
14.261
14.262
14.265
14.266
2. whether service was full-time and satisfactory; 3. the first and last date of service. 14.267 Sr Astrid replied by stating that Thomas Pleece had worked in St Josephs as a House Parent from 1972 until 1976. Nothing in her reply indicated any difficulty with Mr Pleece, in spite of the clear invitation at 2 above to express any reservations she might have. She said: I suppose one thing I wasn't good at writing letters myself, but I don't know why I wrote such a short note; that I didn't say he wasn't satisfactory. 14.268 She said that she would have said on the telephone that she would not have had Thomas Pleece back in St Josephs: I did. I had told him on the phone you see, that was the trouble. They rang me up, you know, for a reference ... Well the information I gave on the telephone, that I wouldn't employ, re-admit Thomas Pleece or that I wouldn't have him. 14.269 She went on to say: I remember getting phone calls from different places where Thomas Pleece applied when he left St Joseph's. I know the only answer I ever gave was "I wouldn't have Thomas Pleece back in St [Josephs] or I wouldn't reply. 14.270 Sr Astrid confirmed that she did not think Thomas Pleece was suitable to work with children because she believed that he was severe with them.
14.271
Mr Evans account of his meeting with Sr Astrid and Mr Pleeces account of his departure are consistent with an allegation of sexual abuse. Had Mr Pleeces behaviour been identified and acknowledged, other children would have been spared abuse and suffering. Having dismissed Thomas Pleece, Sr Astrid should not have given him a reference for another job that would bring him into contact with children.
Peter Tade
14.272 Peter Tade was convicted and sentenced to four years in prison at Kilkenny Circuit Criminal Court on 9th June 1998. He died in prison in 1999 before the hearings into St Josephs took place. Sr Astrid recalled that, after Mr Pleeces removal, there was a staff shortage in St Josephs. Sr Astrid said: When Thomas Pleece was gone I immediately rang the Department. I told Mr. Granville that I had dismissed Thomas Pleece and would he kindly come down to help me to put an ad in the paper and have the right salary. He came down, we wrote the ad, I posted it to the paper. Then when the people applied, came in, I told him that we had so many, but there was only one qualified person. I said "would you come down to interview if he [is] a state qualified person?" And he did. He came down to the parlour and the two of us interviewed Peter Tade. 14.275 According to Sr Astrid, Peter Tade was an elderly man and had great references. He was a very religious and serious man. Both she and Mr Granville agreed that he should be offered the job. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 533
14.273 14.274
14.276
A trainee care worker, Donal Kavanagh,27 who was in Summerhill at the time of Thomas Pleeces removal, gave evidence about the events which led to his resignation from St Josephs in 1977. He had returned to Ireland in 1976 having spent some time abroad and began to assist in St Josephs teaching sports to the boys on three evening a week. This was done on a voluntary basis, as he was acquainted with a female volunteer who worked with the children in St Josephs. He was asked to work in the Summerhill unit following the sudden departure of Thomas Pleece. He did not have a formal interview for the job. He did not know Thomas Pleece but was simply asked to step into his unit until they found a replacement for him. Initially, he worked alone, with the assistance of a Sister who did the cooking. After some months, around August 1976, Peter Tade arrived and was appointed as a House Parent, and Mr Kavanagh became his assistant. Five months later, Donal Kavanagh resigned and wrote a letter of resignation which stated: Dear Rev Mother, Please accept this as my letter of resignation. I leave for the following reasons: Having two house fathers in Summerhill might work under different circumstances; but in the case of Mr Tade and I it is not working. I feel and fear that at the present time Mr Tade is neither mentally nor emotionally stable enough to give the boys the security and example they need. Furthermore I feel the situation in Summerhill at the moment is highly undesirable and unsafe. This is not a hasty or reckless judgment, but an opinion formed after working in close proximity with Mr Tade for four months, and it is not without great thought and extreme reluctance that I now bring these matters to your attention; but as my first responsibility is to the boys in all conscience I must. Having been assured that there is no chance of transferring to another group, I must therefore with even greater reluctance submit this, my resignation. Yours sincerely,
14.277
14.278
14.279 14.280
A copy of this letter was sent to the Bishop, Dr Birch. Soon after he took up his post as Housemaster, Mr Kavanagh observed that Mr Tade shouted and screamed at the boys. He was very volatile. Some of the boys complained to him that Mr Tade came into their rooms at night, especially after he had had a few drinks. They complained that he was physically abusive to them. Mr Kavanagh challenged Mr Tade about the boys complaints. Mr Tade denied any wrongdoing, and Mr Kavanagh initially accepted his word. Subsequently, the boys came to him again and said that things were worse because he had spoken to Mr Tade. He then reported it to Sr Astrid, and she seemed quite shocked by what he told her and said she would do something about it. He met her on at least two occasions. The second time he told her that the boys were continually complaining that nothing had been done, and he felt he could not continue working in the unit with Mr Tade and sought a transfer. Mr Kavanagh explained that, at that time, he was in his mid-20s, with almost no experience in childcare. However, he knew the difference between right and wrong, and he believed the children were being beaten and he was concerned for them. He decided he would have to resign. He spoke with Sr Wilma and told her that the boys were being physically abused. He believed this conversation took place soon after he tendered his letter of resignation. He believed that he told her only about physical abuse, as it never occurred to him that they were being sexually abused.
27
14.281
14.282
534
14.283
After he resigned, he continued to worry about the children. He had an introduction to the Bishop of Ossory and a meeting was arranged. The Bishop was very concerned about what he was being told, and Mr Kavanagh believed that the Bishop saw Sr Astrid and the Mother Superior, and may have discussed this with Sr Wilma. Sr Astrid was asked for a reference for both Mr Thomas Pleece and Mr Donal Kavanagh, and she gave them the following reference: 21st August, 1979, Dear Sir, With reference to your letters of 16th August re 1. Mr. Thomas Pleece 2. Mr. Donal Kavanagh Both men were in employment here as 1. Housefather 2. Trainee Child Care Worker respectively during the periods mentioned. With good wishes, Yours sincerely Sr Astrid
14.284
14.285
In the course of her evidence, Sr Astrid was shown a copy of Donal Kavanaghs letter of resignation, which was written in January 1977. She was asked what her understanding of that letter had been. She told the Committee that she was glad when she got Mr Kavanaghs letter that he was leaving and she explained to the Committee that she had not really read his letter properly at the time she believed he had not written it himself: I admit I didn't read the letter properly. I had never got a complaint from anybody. None of the boys said anything about Peter Tade to me.
14.286
She said that she did not trust Donal Kavanagh, although she did not explain why. She agreed that it was almost impossible to get care workers at that time, either qualified or unqualified, but she still did not want to retain Mr Kavanagh, who had asked for a move away from Peter Tade. Mr Kavanagh surmised that her antipathy stemmed from his desire to unionise the workforce in St Josephs. She said she never discussed the letter with Bishop Birch and never met him about it. It was only on reading the letter more recently that she understood that he was trying to help the boys but, at the time, she was happy to see the back of Donal Kavanagh. Sr Astrid denied that Donal Kavanagh had ever approached her previously about Peter Tades behaviour. The first she knew about it was when she got his letter of resignation. Sr Astrid said that she showed Mr Kavanaghs letter to Graham Granville at the time, although Mr Granville had no recollection of it. She said that she did not know what Peter Tade did after leaving St Josephs. She believed that, because he was quite an old man, he would not have worked in childcare again. She confirmed that she had never been approached for a reference for him. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 535
14.287
14.288
14.289
14.290
14.291
Sr Astrid was asked whether she would have sacked Peter Tade if she knew he had been shouting at boys and beating boys. Her reply was, Well, I would have spoken to him about it ... No I wouldnt have sacked him, no. At the time of Donal Kavanaghs resignation, Sr Astrid said that she had received no complaints about Peter Tade but, six months later, a complaint of sexual abuse was made to her. She told a Garda about the allegation, and asked him to accompany her to Dublin to confront Peter Tade about it. The Garda worked as a volunteer in St Josephs, Kilkenny. He became involved through another Garda, who did similar work with the children and encouraged him to get involved. Both these men became friends and confidantes to Sr Astrid. Sr Astrid appeared to take a back seat in the questioning of Peter Tade. She said that the words sex abuse were not used, but that Tade admitted to improper behaviour: When [the Garda] was questioning him. Whatever he was saying to I took it that there was something improper going on. He didn't use the word sex abuse ...
14.292
14.293
14.294
14.295
She said all the questioning was about the one incident: It was all about that incident. But that incident didn't seem very serious really ... It didn't. The little boy had a sore bottom or something and he looked at it.
14.296
She was asked why, if the incident did not seem serious, she had travelled to Dublin and asked the Garda to accompany her in order to confront Peter Tade. She gave no clear answer to that, although she did say that, once Peter Tade had made his admission, she had told him not to return to St Josephs. Nevertheless, she was clearly concerned enough at the initial complaint to move fairly quickly to talk to Peter Tade. The Garda gave evidence to the Committee. He had no involvement with Thomas Pleece but he did recall Peter Tade as a care worker in St Josephs. He remembered that a complaint was made by Gerry,28 who was the son of a family who befriended children in St Josephs. Peter Tade used to take Richard,29 who was a boy in care in St Josephs, and Gerry on fishing trips and for spins in his car. Peter Tade took photographs of them. The Garda described what happened: the circumstances were that Peter Tade had taken photographs of Richard and Gerry. He used to take them fishing and took them for spins in his car. But Gerrys mother discovered that Peter Tade's face, he was in one of the photographs, had been scratched and pins driven through it and she suspected something was wrong. She spoke to him and he told her that Peter Tade did something to him. As far as I recall it was a bank holiday weekend and Peter Tade was off, he was on leave and he was in Dublin, Sr Astrid said she had to get rid of him or ask him to leave. I came to Dublin with her or I came to Dublin and I met her in Dublin.
14.297
14.298
14.299
The Garda had met Gerrys parents before he left, and they were not anxious to make a formal complaint. They did not want any publicity whatever about their son. The term sexual abuse was not used, but the Garda was in no doubt that an indecent assault had taken place.
28 29
536
14.300
When confronted by Sr Astrid and the Garda, Peter Tade admitted that he had abused Gerry. He admitted that he touched the child improperly. Sr Astrid told him he could never return to St Josephs or have any contact with the children there. The Garda did not take a statement from Sr Astrid at the time, on the basis that there was no formal complaint from Gerrys parents, despite the fact that he had an admission from Peter Tade himself. He also did not question any of the children who had been in the care of Peter Tade for the previous 10 months in St Josephs, and he did not think that Sr Astrid had done so either. As far as he was concerned, it was an isolated incident that had been dealt with. Peter Tade left for England, and there were no more complaints about him. He said he wrote a short report for his Superintendent that Peter Tade had been dismissed from St Josephs for an incident. He never saw that report again. He said that it was 1995 before he realised that the incident with Gerry was not an isolated one, and Peter Tade had been abusing boys in St Josephs since he had arrived 10 months previously. He felt he knew the children in St Josephs well, and regretted that they did not trust him enough to confide in him. He admitted that there was an awareness of a certain amount of sexual activity between the children. Neither the Garda nor Sr Astrid saw fit to question Richard, the boy from St Josephs who was with Gerry in the defaced photograph, and who had also been taken on the trips with Peter Tade, about whether he had been interfered with by Tade. It is difficult to understand why they did not question the other boys in the home where Tade had worked for 10 months. There was a failure on the part of both the Garda and Sr Astrid to face up to the danger Peter Tade posed to other children. Peter Tade died whilst serving the four-year sentence imposed on him by the Circuit Criminal Court in 1999. He had pleaded guilty to seven counts of indecent assault against three former residents of St Josephs and Gerry, the boy who had made the complaint in 1977. Peter Tade had given a full statement to the investigating Garda in 1995, in which he had described being sexually abused by a family friend at seven years of age. In the mid-1960s, whilst working in a boys club in England, he had first abused a boy of 14 years. He was over 30 at the time. He had abused more children after that and, in 1967, took his first job in childcare. He described a series of incidents of abuse of young boys aged from about 11 to 14. He worked in a number of residential homes, but his activities were never uncovered. He returned to Ireland to take up the job in Kilkenny in 1976, and his pattern of abuse continued. He listed a number of boys that he had sexually abused in Kilkenny and a number of boys he had physically abused. After his encounter with Sr Astrid, he returned to England and continued his abusive behaviour until, one day, a boy he had been abusing for over two years finally told the housemaster of the school he was working in. He denied the abuse and was acquitted by Middlesborough Crown Court in 1988. By 1995, he had moved back to Ireland and when confronted by the investigating Garda he admitted abusing boys in Kilkenny. When Peter Tade was sentenced, the Sister of Charity issued a statement as follows: the first complaint we received about Peter Tade concerning sexual abuse was made on a weekend in June, 1977, when Peter Tade was away in Dublin. One of the children CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 537
14.301
14.302
14.303
14.304
14.305
14.306
14.307
14.308
14.309
14.310
made a specific complaint of abuse against him to the sister in charge, she immediately called in a local Garda who was involved with St. Josephs in a voluntary capacity and they both travelled to Dublin to confront Peter Tade. This confrontation resulted in his immediate dismissal. Peter Tade never returned to St. Josephs. 14.311 Two volunteer workers who were in St Josephs during Thomas Pleeces and Peter Tades time there said they had no idea that these men were abusing children. A third man, however, had been told about sexual abuse in the School. Patrick McGovern30 helped out in St Josephs on a voluntary basis with the entertainment in the School. He had a fair amount of contact with the School, and would call in and play music for the children. In or around 1974, a friend of his asked him to meet his daughter who was working in the School. She said to him that one of the boys was being molested in bed in the School. He understood that it was sexual molestation. He called to the convent and told Sr Wilma about this: I did, I called to the convent. It was dark, miserable weather, I can remember it well, being on the front step of the convent, there was a light over the door, it was really Dickensian, I knocked on the door and Sr Wilma came out. I knew her more than I knew the other nuns so I was glad it was her that answered the door. 14.313 He continued: I said to you her, I said I have had a bad complaint, and she said well bad complaints to her would be a daily thing, she would have to hear it first before she'd agree it was bad. So I said to her I have a report that there is a boy being molested, and she just took a step back and said, [Patrick] you can, as sure as you are standing there, that's not the word she used, it doesn't happen. They have a habit of or there is a history there of boys and girls making up stories to gain attention. I said is that the way it is? She said that's the way it is. So I said thanks very much, and I went back to the person, the young girl I spoke to earlier on and said nothing is going to be done, it is not going do be followed through, because we know now there was reason to follow it through. 14.314 He said that, after speaking with Sr Wilma, he was satisfied that nothing further would be done about the complaint: No, she made it plain to me that nothing was going on. So I respected her a great deal, I have to say that at that stage, and I was happy that what she was saying was exactly how things were, that there was nothing going on. It was only when evidence came up later that I was annoyed that I didn't do more 14.315 He came forward in 1995 and made a formal statement to the Garda in relation to this when he read the revelations about abuse in the newspapers.
14.312
Sr Wilma
14.316 Sr Wilma told the Committee that she only knew Peter Tade to see around the grounds of St Josephs. She remembered Donal Kavanagh, as she knew him from around Kilkenny and she knew his family. She recalled Donal Kavanagh complaining to her that Peter Tade was physically abusing the children. He did this in the context of speaking to her about doing the childcare course and, in the course of that discussion, he mentioned that Peter Tade slapped the children. She remembered telling him that he should go to Sr Astrid about it. In her interview with the Garda in December 1995, she stated: I picked up on it that he might have been sexually abusing them as well. In her evidence to the Commission, Sr Wilma corrected
30
14.317
538
that statement. She said she made a mistake in her Garda statement, and that she could not possibly have known about sexual abuse back in 1970 when Donal Kavanagh spoke to her. She did know about incest and men interfering with girls, but she knew nothing about men interfering with boys. She also suggested in her evidence that her statement to the Garda was somewhat informal, and not as formal as the signed document would suggest. It took place in her solicitors office. 14.318 She said she did not personally arrange for Mr Kavanagh to see the Bishop, but found out later that he did see him. Her action was to tell him to talk to Sr Astrid about the complaint, and she would have taken no further action in regard to the matter. As far as she was concerned, Sr Astrid was in charge of the matter and would have been dealing with it properly. Sr Wilma told the Committee that, back in the 1970s, if she was told that an adult was molesting a child, she would not have interpreted that as meaning some kind of inappropriate activity. Patrick McGovern gave evidence that he complained to her that one of the boys was being molested by a care worker. She had no recollection of it at all. Patrick McGovern said that her response was to dismiss it as not having happened. She said that, even if she had been told, she would have done nothing more that tell them to go to the person in charge of the Institution. She said in response to questioning that she did not find it at all extraordinary that, when Peter Tade was sacked for interfering with a boy who was visiting the School, it was not discussed among the Sisters in the Community. It was the business of people in residential care and we did not discuss our works, we simply didnt. She continued: it wasnt extraordinary at that time, it wasnt extraordinary that I did not know about Peter Tade. It wasnt extraordinary at all. It was normal. When it came to our works and this was about work, this was about Sr Astrid area of work. When it came to our works I may as well have been living in Kerry as living in St Josephs. Thats reality. 14.322 Despite running the childcare course in residential care in Kilkenny, she was living with a residential institution on her doorstep, and she knew nothing about what was going on inside it. Sr Wilma attended a number of meetings with Bishop Birch and the Department of Education. She also signed a report on proposed changes about to take place in St Josephs. She acknowledged that a newspaper article written by her in 1999, which asserted that she had nothing whatsoever to do with St Josephs, was not entirely accurate.
14.319
14.320
14.321
Other allegations of abuse

14.323 In the course of the Garda investigation in 1995, a female care worker admitted to sexually assaulting a number of boys in the School by taking them into her bed and fondling them. She said she was 16 years old at the time and was unaware that what she was doing was wrong. The boys were seven or eight at the time. Once she got older, she realised that this was wrong. Sr Astrid recalled another bizarre incident. Some time around 1966 or 1967, young deacons from St Kierans College came to St Josephs to help with the children. A year or two later, towards the end of the 1960s, some of these students came to Summerhill to supervise the boys at night time. She was told that the students, she believed there were four involved, and the boys in Summerhill were running around naked. She did not see it herself but told the Garda about it. He reported it to the President of St Kierans, who in turn informed the Dean of Students. She said that she herself spoke to the President of the college about the incident, and the students did not return to St Josephs after that. She did not mention this incident to anyone and none of the children made any complaints. Sr Astrid commented that, although she did not think that there was any question CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 539
14.324
of sexual abuse in this incident, she was sufficiently worried to speak to the Garda and to discuss it with the President of the College: But I didnt, you see the trouble with me was I didnt know about sexual abuse, you see. That was the trouble with me. 14.325 She did not agree that she buried her head in the sand on this issue.
The Kilkenny childcare course

14.326 The Sisters of Charity were the first Congregation to establish a training course for people involved in childcare. The course was first held in 1971 and was attended mainly by religious. Sr Wilma said the idea came from Bishop Birch, and she drew up an outline for the course which was presented to the Department of Education. They agreed to fund it, and it was eventually recognised as an official qualification in residential childcare, and was also recognised by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work in London. Both she and Mr Pat Brennan31 had considerable experience in social work and working with children, but neither of them had actually worked in residential childcare. Mr Brennan, who was the Director of the Kilkenny Diploma Course in Residential Childcare, described the course and the training it offered. The course, which ran for 10 years from 1971 to 1981, came about as a result of the recommendations in the Kennedy Report. Bishop Birch offered the Department of Education a house in Kilkenny, and the Bishop sponsored and designed the course. Mr Brennan was acquainted with Bishop Birch and was offered the job of running the course. Sr Wilma was one of the lecturers on the course on a part-time basis. Students who attended the course were sent on placements for in-house training, and St Josephs was one of the placement centres. He believed that Sr Wilma was the supervisor of the placements in St Josephs; it was considered to be her domain and, as a result, he had very little to do with St Josephs. Prospective students on the course were interviewed by a panel of five, including Mr Brennan and Sr Wilma. There were normally around 50 applicants for 20 places. The requirements were: two years experience in residential childcare, the Leaving Certificate, three references, and two essays. He said that the issues of child sexual abuse or incest were never discussed on the course and were not on the agenda. From 1973, there was a huge preoccupation with physical abuse, mainly because of the controversial Maria Colwell case in England, where a child died in 1973 as a result of failure to protect the child in a violent family situation. The course contents included training on how to deal appropriately with bed-wetting. The course attempted to try and make the participants think for themselves and make decisions on their own, without allowing their religious training to shape all their decisions. The participants were almost entirely made up of religious personnel, and this caused some tensions. He said that some participants left the course, and he was met with some opposition about the content of the course. Students were followed up after the course. Once a year, there was a residential weekend and they met socially. He personally called on some of the students to assess progress. The course did not require formal feedback from Resident Managers of the institutions to which the students were sent. The course ceased in 1981 because it could not get the professional recognition from the National Council for Educational Awards.
31
14.327
14.328
14.329
14.330
14.331
540
14.332
The Pleece case and the Tade cases indicate a high level of immaturity and naivety in dealing with issues of sexual abuse, particularly on the part of Sr Astrid. Allowing these men to leave St Josephs and continue with careers in childcare was dangerous and irresponsible. It was not enough to remove them from St Josephs. These men posed a risk to children and, with her experience in childcare, Sr Astrid should have been aware of that. The inability to face up to the problem of men abusing young boys was not confined to the Sisters. Experienced Garda and professionals were also inadequate in their response to this issue.
The period 19781990

14.333 Sr Astrid continued as Resident Manager of St Josephs until 1986, when she was replaced by Sr Livia.32 This was a turbulent period for the Institution, when established methods were questioned, particularly by qualified lay staff who were employed there. The documentation revealed a degree of tension between the Department of Education and the Resident Manager about keeping numbers down. The School was perceived as having too many children to care for any of them properly, although this was not a view shared by the Sisters. This was a period of transition between the Department of Education and the Department of Health. Responsibility for St Josephs was transferred to the Department of Health in January 1984. On 14th October 1977, Mr Granville attended St Josephs to give the staff a formal lecture on leadership in the group homes, and to discuss the future of St Josephs with the Provincial and Sr Astrid. It was agreed that the aim would be to try and reduce the numbers in the homes to 60 by 1980. Mr Granville believed that the large numbers in residence were partly responsible for difficulties with the local day schools. They also discussed plans to employ a social worker for the children. Health Board social workers at that time were not geared specifically towards children. From November 1977, the Department began to focus their attention on the size of St Josephs, Kilkenny. This followed a report by Graham Granville on the future needs in residential homes. In an internal memorandum dated 16th January 1978, senior Department officials were in agreement that over 100 children was too large in Kilkenny, and around 60 maximum was a more desirable figure. The Department was perplexed by the fact that Kilkenny was so full, when the homes in other areas were faced with decreasing numbers and many were considering closing in the near future. The reason for the Department of Educations dissatisfaction with the large numbers in Kilkenny is evidenced by a four-page letter dated 8th May 1978. In this letter, Thomas OGilin of the Department of Education invited Mr T ODwyer, Principal Officer in the Department of Health, to meet and discuss the question of the future development of residential homes. He set out the changes that had taken place over the years since the Kennedy Report in the area of building programmes and in the declining number of children committed through the courts and the ISPCC. This had led to a situation where, in most cases, the homes finance for current costs came from the Health Boards who had the largest number of placements, yet responsibility for capital financing still remained entirely with the Department of Education. This created the anomaly because provision of capital money entailed a planning function, but the information needed for planning for future needs had to come from the Health Boards who were placing the majority of the children. The Task Force currently studying the situation were most likely to recommend the
32
14.334
14.335
14.336
14.337
541
transfer of responsibility for residential homes to the Department of Health but, in the meantime, many urgent problems existed that required the co-operation of the two Departments. 14.338 In a report on a visit to St Josephs, Kilkenny dated 25th April 1979, the author met with Sr Astrid and was made aware of a number of her concerns with regard to the difficulties still being experienced by short-term children fitting into the outside schools, where they underwent the double trauma of change from their own homes to residential care and out of the residential home into a strange school. She also drew his attention to the fact that, after prolonged negotiation, the social worker who had been released from the South Eastern Health Board (SEHB) to work in St Josephs for a two-year period had now been recalled to normal duty, due to staff shortages in the SEHB. Finally, she requested grant assistance for the aftercare residence under construction. On 23rd January 1980, the Department noted that, despite the plans to reduce numbers, the Kilkenny returns of September 1979 showed 124 children still in residence. Following an investigation into this, it was discovered that, while there had been no children committed to Kilkenny since 1977, the Health Boards were making full use of the resulting vacancies, obviously with the co-operation of the Resident Manager. In his report dated 2nd February 1980, Mr Granville submitted what he considered were the direct relevant factors to the population figures of St Josephs, Kilkenny. First were the changes brought about by the Kennedy Report, which meant that residential homes moved away generally from large institutional centres to group homes, and this dramatically dropped the number of residential places on a national basis. Secondly, the lack of social work support services to the any of the children in residential care in the SEHB area. Thirdly, there was a lack of preventative work being carried out under the School Attendance Act. Finally, the growth in population had not been taken into consideration by the SEHB when planning for provision of their services. In conclusion, Mr Granville recommended that Sr Astrid should be instructed to cease all admissions until the numbers were down to 70. He also recommended that no money should be paid for the work on the aftercare hostel until numbers were reduced. He noted that Kilkenny had an excessive number of trainees and not enough trained staff. Mr Granville carried out a General Inspection on 25th May 1980; the previous inspection was dated 27th January 1977. He inspected all the group homes and, in general, his comments were favourable. In January 1981, Mr Granville, in an addendum to his General Inspection report, noted that Summerhill had been redecorated and refurbished to an excellent standard. The five other group homes, however, still needed attention, and only two were in satisfactory condition. He noted that there were too few staff and some were untrained in the nursery, where babies were in residence for far too long. He was very concerned about the emotional damage being inadvertently caused by being handled by so many different staff, and discussed this with the Resident Manager. There were 41 staff in total in the School, two male and 39 female. There had been 32 changes of staff since 1977. His concluded his report with the following: Conclusions: 1. The overall total number of children in residential care has not decreased over the past few years, which is a disappointing factor. Page 211 records 113 children in residence, two more than at the latest inspection. There is a marked increase in the numbers in the nursery and in the short term unit St Teresas ... In my opinion there are far too many children in residential care in a city the size of Kilkenny. 14.343 He concluded this report by stating: I would state that the Manager has a very serious communication problem with the staff in the group homes. There would seemingly be a lack of information at all levels being 542 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
14.339
14.340
14.341
14.342
exchanged and I would have to raise questions about this matter. I did discuss it with the Manager and I came to the conclusion that it has been a perennial problem, as far as I am concerned. It has always been extremely difficult to obtain the facts about Kilkenny, due to the defensive protective air around the centre. Nevertheless, one has to consistently maintain a working relationship with the manager and centre even at times that may be extremely difficult. 14.344 The following year, he inspected the School again, in February 1982, and continued to be concerned about the quality of care in the nursery and discussed this with the Resident Manager. He carried out another General Inspection a year later, in February 1983, and noted that there were no longer any male staff in the group homes and felt this was a serious omission in the care teams. He was concerned about the increase in staff turnover (seven in the year) and the shortage of religious Sisters due to illness and training. Twelve of the care staff, which represented nearly 50%, were on childcare courses, which presented a serious management issue and were being replaced by substitute staff on a part-time basis, which he was not happy or satisfied with, as the children had no continuity with staff. Summerhill was now known as Sancta Maria, and provided additional short-term accommodation. The nursery had been closed, which was a major achievement. The quality of care within the nursery had not been satisfactory, and the Manager was aware of his views backed by evidence. He was still concerned about the high number of children in care in Kilkenny, too high for the city to absorb in socialisation and academic terms. St Josephs asked the Department in late 1983 to sanction a remedial teacher to be attached to the School. The difficulty for the School centred around the fact that local schools were unwilling to cater for children on short term stay in St Josephs. On 16th February, officials from the Department of Education, Department of Health and South Eastern Health Board met to discuss the special educational needs of short-term referrals, where it was agreed that the Department of Education would consider approving the services of an extra teacher, on a trial basis, to cater for the needs of these children. Sr Ronja,33 who was in charge of Avondale was the subject of complaints by two childcare workers, in 1986 and 1990 respectively. A woman in Avondale from 1985 to 1986 made complaints including institutionalisation of the home, lack of consideration given to professional opinions of staff, authoritarian-style leadership, failure to cater for the emotional needs of the children and corporal punishment. The complaint was investigated by a Health Board official, but he dismissed it. Sr Ronja said she had no recollection of this investigation, and did not recall speaking with him, despite being shown contemporary documentation of such meetings. In April 1990, childcare practices in Avondale came under scrutiny once again. Another childcare worker met with Sr Alicia34 and the Health Board official and outlined the difficulties in Avondale in regard to the manner in which the childcare services were being conducted there under Sr Ronja. She expressed grave concern about the following areas: 1. Corporal Punishment severe in some cases
33 34
14.345
14.346
14.347
14.348
14.349
14.350
14.351
14.352
543
2. Control of food being stored in room of House Parent and not available to childcare staff 3. Provision of mundane food at certain times and better food being produced when house parent appeared 4. Refusal of houseparent to communicate with staff 5. Undermining of decision made by childcare staff 6. Problems with staff roster and rostering of house parent 14.353 She informed the meeting that another qualified care worker in the house was threatening to resign unless matters improved quickly. On 30th April 1990, in a letter addressed to Sr Alicia, Programme Manager of the South Eastern Health Board, Sr Ronja, House Parent of Avondale, tendered her resignation, having been assigned by her Superior General to a missionary post overseas. The childcare worker gave evidence of her experience in St Josephs. She completed the Kilkenny childcare course in 1974/75 and obtained a contract in Avondale in St Josephs for a six-month period from January to July 1990. There were 11 children in the unit, and Sr Ronja was in charge. At the start of her assignment, Sr Alicia warned her that the person she would be working with was quite difficult. What transpired was that she found the systems in place in Avondale institutional and sterile, and the staff were mainly involved in cleaning, sewing and cooking, with little time devoted to the emotional needs of the children. Very little affection was demonstrated, and there was one particular child singled out for favouritism. The children told her they were beaten quite severely, and she had no reason to doubt what they were saying to her. Food was of reasonable quality but was rationed, and there was no flexibility around the portions the children were allowed. She found all this extraordinary in the 1990s. She met with Sr Alicia and a Health Board official about her concerns in April 1990. She complained about Sr Ronjas management of the children in the house. There was no consultation over key decisions, and Sr Ronja was an autocratic manager. She felt that Sr Ronja resented her and perceived her as upsetting the apple cart. Children were not allowed to show any signs of independence. For example, she allowed the older children to walk to mass by themselves one day, and Sr Ronja took grave exception to this. Sr Ronja also gave evidence. She joined the Sisters of Charity in the mid-1970s. She started in St Josephs in 1977 and remained there until 1990. She was a qualified childcare worker. Sr Ronja worked in St Josephs initially and, in 1981, she became House Parent in a group home known as Avondale, which catered for 15 children aged 2 to 15 years. She reported directly to Sr Astrid and, in the beginning, she only had one live-in staff member, Barbara Brady,35 who was a tireless worker. Sr Ronja tried to ensure that the children in her group home were properly fed, clothed and attended school. She enforced discipline by occasionally slapping the younger children on the backside with an open hand and sending them to their rooms. With the older children, she would ground them from a disco or swimming. Sr Astrid gave evidence that she witnessed Sr Ronja physically punishing a pupil. Sr Ronja did not remember this occasion, although she did remember having to slap the boy once for not attending school and forging notes of excuse. Sr Astrid said in her Garda statement that she recalled that some of the children complained to her that Sr Ronja was cruel to them. She said
35
14.354
14.355
14.356
14.357
14.358
14.359
544
that, one day, Sr Ronja had a small boy in the convent parlour. She recalled hearing the boy screaming because Sr Ronja was beating him. She said that Sr Ronja was reprimanded for that.
General conclusions
14.360 1. The Sisters of Charity were progressive in their approach and unique among Congregations in sending their members to the UK to undergo courses in childcare and, as a result, they split up the Institution into separate units, which worked much better than the large unitary institutions. 2. Notwithstanding the favourable evidence about this Institution, children were severely physically punished and treated unsympathetically by some of the care staff, which continued into later years. Even when complaints were made, no action was taken by management to protect the children. 3. Differential treatment between the units is a major criticism of the Institution. The quality of care depended on which unit the child was placed in. The blue unit was run by Sr Astrid, the Resident Manager, and the girls in it received the most favourable treatment, according to the evidence. This Sister was very kind and there was little or no corporal punishment, and the girls in her group considered themselves, and were considered, to be the lucky ones. 4. No lessons were learned from the Jacobs case at the time, and no proper system of record keeping or monitoring was introduced. In its Submissions, the Congregation did not address the serious implications of this case. The apology referred only to the two convicted abusers and, even then, no Congregational responsibility was acknowledged. 5. Sr Astrid eventually removed Mr Pleece and, later, Mr Tade after complaints were made to her about them. However, she did not face up to what had happened to the children. She failed in her duty to provide accurate information to other bodies and thereby exposed other children to the risk of abuse.
545
Appendix 1
18761882
Ten acres purchased for farm. Foundation stone for new chapel and convent. Main sewer installed from school to river. Grant of 100 from Corporation paid for installation. Convent cells were demolished to provide dormitories for the children and a new Lavatory. Water supply previously provided in barrels now replaced by flow conveyed by machinery from the River Nore.
18881894
Wall to enclose the farmyard. New stable, coach house and hennery built. Entrance gate erected. New wing erected. Consisted of School room 62 feet long and 27 feet wide, with 59 bedded dormitory over it. Mr Stephen Lalor builder. Mr Byrne architect.
18941900

546
Veranda erected: glass-roofed passage leading from the playhall to the Schoolroom and other parts of the Institution. New Entrance gate. Rebuilding of Institution stairs and other improvements following a fire.
19001905
A new Technical room erected with a small Dormitory for the little ones above. Built by Mr Cleere and completed by 8th May 1903. Review Fields purchased under the new Land Act by Mr Buggy solicitor.
19051915
1907: House and premises of Mr Pembroke of Patrick Street rented for us by Mr Lanigan, Solicitor. Rent was 24 per annum with 82 year lease. Boundary wall built; cattle houses and stables built on farmyard side and an entrance in the farmyard made with a new gate for cattle and fodder. Cost 204.10.0 Completed in May 1908. Architect Mr Burden of Kilkenny. Fee 8. Electric light brought to Convent and Institution by Ampere Electrical, County Dublin. Completed in January 1910. 1914: New bathroom with two baths, foot baths, hair-washing baths, dispensary apparatus with one bath and three up to date w.c.s, copper boiler and large cylinder installed. Cost 282.12.1. Mr Cleere, builder. Mr Young, plumber. New copper piping installed by Mr Young. Cost of 407.10.0. 1915: Repairs to gable end of Stewards House, boundary wall and cow house. Cottage completely renovated. Cost 217. Builder Mr Cleere. Sanitary arrangements by Mr Young 33. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
1925
1926
Electric Battery renewed: 243. It supplies Institution, Convent and Laundry.

1927
New system of conduit pipes in the children dressing room installed. Cost 142.10.0 Field purchased of 8 acres at 450.
1928
Heating apparatus installed in new play hall which heats St Marys and St Michaels dormitories, as well as the Dispensary, Nursery, Infirmary and schoolroom.
Completed the Central heating of Institution- including childrens refectory, workroom, Linen room. Teachers room, lower corridor and upstairs, all dormitories, corridor etc. also convent.
1930
1932
New hostel for the girls to replace the cottage. Cost: 377.

1933
Store room in Institution retiled, new presses fitted and a Carron Range erected to replace the old one. Back playground was cemented.

1934
Veranda passage rebuilt and enlarged. Part of roof re-slated and fitted with snow-boards. Part of wall cemented.

1938
Battery for electric light renewed. New house constructed for same.
19351941
Two fields purchased known locally as Morrisseys fields for a playing field for the children adjoining the school yard and another large field adjacent to the convent grounds. A modern playground built and equipped. 1936: New Girl-Guide hall built and opened on 2nd February.
1942
New water tank erected for the Institution. Holds 4,000 gallons of water Cost 131.10.0
Owing to the shortage of Fuel Oil the ESB installed their Plant in the Institution, Convent and laundry, re-wiring the whole premises. Gas Stoves were erected in Hostel and Institution as it was impossible to get fuel. 547

1944
Kooks Joy Range was also installed in Institution Kitchen, at a cost of 50 for Cooking purposes and heating water etc.
1946
A concrete stairs was erected at the cost of 200, making an external exit from two Dormitories at the back of the Institution, from the back playground in case of fire.
Hostel was repainted, the dining room greatly improved by being painted cream and light oak. The large refectory table was replaced by for small tables placed in each corner of the room with a serving table in the centre, a new set of chairs completed the furnishing. In 1947 a pretty green lino and cretonne curtains added greatly to the appearance of the room.
19471953

1950
Playground equipped with swings for Seniors and Juniors, also in 1948 the playground was equipped with the very latest swings for both seniors and juniors. A Great Stride was also erected and see-saws. A fine sand pit complete with cement table. A nursery was built for the babies costing approx. 3,000 A new Lavatory Block was built costing about 2,000 The Kitchen was equipped with all Electric Fittings. The Institution was re-modelled to make it suitable for the new Family Group system Between 1947 and 1949 much repair work undertaken. Cost approx. 900. The walls around the playground had to be renewed. The Institution Kitchen was turned into an all-electric one Potato Peeler Baking and Roasting Ovens Stewpan etc. The floor was redone in green and cream Terrazzo costing approx. 1,000. A much needed Sanitary Block was built for night use. It contained five lavatories and a sluice. It also was done in Terrazzo. Two of the Junior dormitories were also fitted with a lavatory each and a footbath. The approx. cost was 2,000.
1953
New Nursery completed. It contains a sunny day Nursery and Refectory.
The night Nursery, Baths and Toilets were added, thus completing the babies suite of apartments.
19531959
The paths round the Convent were treated by Roadstone, the Childrens playground had a hard court laid, and it is fenced round it can be used to advantage as a Babys Pen when not in use for the other children, it is marked and equipped for Tennis and Basket Ball. A new fowl house was built at the cost of 550 approx. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
548
19591965
Walls between old kitchen and little pantry knocked down. Room painted as play-room for children from 4 years upwards. 1961: In St Bernadettes house two dormitories were painted. lino laid on stairs. Small room fitted out for past pupils who return for visit of a few nights of weeks. 1962: In the childrens houses new colourful tiles went into their refectories and corridors Up to this time, our heating was all by coal and coke, but in October the Convent and school went on to oil heating. The school was painted in bright, lovely colours and two new toilets were added to the baby room. Babies playroom was painted in bright grey colours and old benches were converted into little seats with pretty, flowered, cretonne covers, Their bathroom was done up. A dormitory in each house was painted. 1965: Fire precautions installed after inspection by Mr Madden. Partition installed on the top of the stairs in the Institution. The panels were to be of fire glass. All the panels in the existing doors between the groups had to have panels of fire glass also. Painting of the refectories in St Bernadettes and St Theresas Houses and the sitting room in St Josephs house. A new up to date cow byre constructed. Grant to be provided by the Department.
19651984
1969: the first group of children moved out of St Josephs into St Kierans lodge. The school (Summerhill) was renovated and turned into a group home and the three houses in the main building were also renovated and turned into self-contained homes with gas cookers and fridges in the kitchenettes. 19th March 1970: a group of twelve children moved to Beechpark, which is a residential area about one mile from St Josephs. In March 1970 a grant of 15,000 was received from the Department towards the cost of the following works totalling 26,600:
Repairs to roof and floors of section of main building Levelling of field Completion of work on group home in main building Adaptation of old school Purchase of two houses Work on two group homes within main building New laundry for residential home Renovation of two buildings (Maryville and No 45 Waterford Road) Renovation of Chapel Central Heating 7,000 1,500 6,000 4,500 7,600 13,000 4,000 4,000 20,000 17,300
A grant of 9,000 was paid at the close of the financial year 1971/72 towards the cost of building and equipping a sports hall estimated to cost up to 20,000. Before the work could be commenced, however, it came to the nuns notice that plans were going ahead for the erection on a nearby site of a parish community hall. The project at the residential home had therefore to be left in abeyance. The grant was then used for other repairs in the house. 549
Thereafter there is no record of the improvements, additions, renovation in each House. In March 1976, Avondale, a bungalow on the Waterford Rd., was purchased by the Sisters of Charity at a cost of 29,000. In 1976 St Josephs purchased a plot in the back garden of the Convent in Tramore. A mobile home for the children and caravan for the Sisters was purchased. The mobile home proved too small and confined for the numbers so a house was erected in 1978 to accommodate a maximum of forty children for holidays. 1984 grant of 5,000 from SEHB towards repairs to floor in Slievenamon After-Care Hostel, Stanhope Street.
550
Chapter 15
St Marys School for Deaf Girls, Cabra
Introduction
Background
15.01 St Marys School for Deaf Girls opened in August 1846 in the grounds of the Dominican Convent in Cabra in Dublin. It is managed by the Dominican Sisters under the trusteeship of the Catholic Institute for Deaf People (formerly the Catholic Institute for the Deaf), which is under the patronage of the Archbishop of Dublin. The School was established at the request of Fr Thomas McNamara, a Vincentian Priest from Phibsborough, Dublin who was one of the founding members of the Catholic Institute for the Deaf. In 1845 when the Institute was founded there were no Catholic schools for the education of deaf children. The Catholic Institute for the Deaf sought to change this and, as a result, St Marys school was established for the education of deaf girls and in 1856 a boys deaf school was founded, also in Cabra, which was managed by the Christian Brothers. Early in 1846 two Dominican Sisters went from Ireland to Le Bon Sauveur Institute for the deaf in Caen in Normandy to study the French system of teaching the deaf. Two deaf pupils accompanied them. French sign language was used at the school in Caen and the Sisters on their return adapted this signing method to suit the English language. For a hundred years this sign language system (also known as Manualism), which was modelled on the French sign language was taught in St Marys. The boys school in Cabra also adopted this teaching method. In 1946, St Marys changed from signing to the Oral method, known as Oralism. This consists of lip reading and speech training rather than relying on gestures and signs. Oralism is the preferred teaching method employed in the School to the present day.
15.02
15.03
Population
15.04 When St Marys opened in August 1846 it had 15 pupils, which increased to 50 in 1850. In 1952 there were 177 children in the school. In 1985 the school had 350 girls enrolled. It accepts both day pupils and boarders. Girls were admitted to the school from the age of four years through to 17 or 18 years of age.
Management
15.05 The School is managed by a Board of Management with a Principal and Vice-Principal in day to day charge. When it was first opened in 1846 the School was directly managed by the Dominican Sisters. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 551
Structure
15.06 The pupils were divided into three main groups: (a) profoundly deaf; (b) partially deaf; (c) deaf students with other disabilities. Until 1974 boarders were divided into groups of approximately 30 according to age. After 1974 the groups were reduced in size to 16 or less. Each group had a Sister in charge, a housemother and a sewing girl. The babies group had two sewing girls. The School consists of a primary and post-primary section. In 1973 a new residential school for the hard of hearing pupils, known as Rosary School, was built. It was situated a quarter of a mile from the main school of St Marys. At that time it consisted of 12 classrooms, a general purpose room, a library, a staffroom, offices, a cookery room and store room. A school Inspection report in 1984 carried out by a Department of Education Inspector noted that the school was clean, comfortable and well-maintained and located in pleasant grounds. In 1987 a new school for deaf multiply disabled children was built on the grounds of St Marys. It was known as the Marian School. It consists of four large classrooms, two shared-area classrooms, a staffroom, a library, a large kitchen, an art room and play hall. The pupils were grouped into eight classes according to disability, age and academic ability. By 1990 there were seven full-time teachers employed.
15.07 15.08
15.09
Funding
15.10 Originally, the School was funded by the Catholic Institute for the Deaf. They received a grant from the local authorities where the children came from. The school made an application to the Catholic Institute for funding based on the number of days each child was resident in the school. The remainder of the funding came from charitable bequests or fundraising. It was not until 1952 when the School was officially recognised by the Department of Education as a special school that it received funding from the Department. The Department of Health later assumed responsibility for the residential aspects of the School. In 1960 the grant paid by the local authorities for the maintenance of the children amounted to 80.00 per pupil per year. In a letter from the Department of Education to the Department of Finance seeking an increase in the staffing levels dated 1st March 1960, the Department officials pointed out that this figure of 80 was insufficient to maintain a child in the School. They also asserted that no other maintenance grant was provided to the nuns. Reference was also made to the high cost of hearing equipment necessary for deaf children. For example, in 1960 a group hearing aid consisting of a large table with plastic top, microphones and wiring for 12 individual hearing aids cost 250.
15.11
The Investigation
15.12 Twenty one statements of complaint were furnished to the Investigation Committee. Response statements were supplied by both the Dominican Sisters and the Department of Education in respect of these written complaints. The investigation into the School consisted of a review of the material produced by the Department of Education and Science, the Dominican Sisters, the Catholic Institute for the Deaf, the Garda Sochana, the Archbishop of Dublin and the complainants statements. Thirteen complainants attended for interview out of 23 who were invited to attend. These interviews took place at the Commissions offices and at various other locations around the country and in the United Kingdom. 552 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
15.13
Education
Primary education
15.14 On 21st April 1952, Sr McEvoy, Prioress of St Marys wrote to the Department of Education seeking recognition as a special school. She insisted that due to the nature of deafness small class sizes were necessary and that there can be no mass teaching of deaf children, each child has her own separate problem. She felt that 10 to a class would be ideal but twelve may be allowed under stress. Sr McEvoy also emphasised the importance of speaking: Another point of difference is the fact that it is a residential school. The time spent outside class play, meals, etc. is as important for the education of these children as the time spent in class; ours is now an up-to-date oral school and in consequence the children must be kept speaking at all times, and not allowed to use sign language. This work is done by a qualified matron. She would have to be included in the recognised staff, as well as a Principal and a Vice Principal. 15.15 A report for the Department of Education in 1952 noted that there were 177 pupils in the school aged between four and 18 years. The staff consisted of six nuns and six lay teachers who were assisted by five deaf adults. Two of the nuns were fully trained as teachers of the deaf and the remaining staff members had experience in teaching the deaf but their qualifications were approximate to the qualification of untrained teachers. The report commented that the premises and equipment were excellent and that the whole direction shows an enthusiasm, vision and progressiveness which should make the institution a model not alone for this but for other countries. The Department felt that a staff of 12 teachers would be needed for the recognition of the school together with a new set of minimum qualification requirements for teachers, assistants and Principals. The teacher pupil ratio was to be 14:1. The Department sought the approval of the Department of Finance for these proposals on 1st August 1952. The Dominican Sisters generally accepted the Departments proposals, but they were concerned about the high pupilteacher ratio. In a letter to the Department of 17th September 1952, Sr McEvoy pointed out that there should only be a maximum of 10 deaf children to one teacher in a class. She asserted that this was a matter of universal experience. She also took issue with the Department treating them as a national school and reminded them that the Sisters had never at any time applied for recognition as a national school and stated that they had declined to do so for many years, because we believe that many of the Departments regulations for National Schools are incompatible with the proper running of a residential school for deaf children. She again reminded the Department that Our application was for recognition as a special school, and we understood before making the application that your Department had initiated a scheme for special schools. In 1955, the Department of Finance sanctioned the pupil teacher ratio for the school at 10 pupils to one teacher which was to be calculated on the basis of the number of children in average attendance in a year. On 27th January 1960 the Department of Education wrote to the Department of Finance seeking to change the requirement of staffing levels based on the number of children in attendance in a year to the number of children enrolled in the school in any given year. The reason was that the numbers of children in attendance often fluctuated due to illness and hospitalisation. The Department also pointed out in this letter that: ...The authorities of the Department of Education of the Deaf at Manchester University have been reported as being of opinion that St. Marys is one of the leading schools for deaf in the world and that there are only two others one in Holland and the other in America to compare with it. CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II 553
15.16
15.17
15.18
The Department of Finance refused the request and stated that the staffing levels in the school were already liberal comparing favourably even with the special quotas for other categories of handicapped children.... The Department of Education replied by letter dated 1st March 1960 and argued that the only correct basis of comparison of staffing levels could be made with deaf schools in other countries and not with other special schools. They pointed out that in deaf schools in England there was one teacher to every eight students on the rolls and such a similar basis operated in the United States. In English deaf schools, children were not removed from the school rolls even when they were in hospital, unlike their Irish counterparts who had to remove their names from the rolls when in hospital. On 22nd March 1960, the Department of Finance capitulated. School Inspection Reports show that in 1985 the average number of pupils in each class was between seven and eight. In 1986 the pupil teacher ratio was 6:1.
15.19
Post-primary education
15.20 In the late 1950s the School began providing secondary education. At that time the number of students was quite small and the School was able to meet the needs of these students either within the primary staff quota or with minimal extra teachers. It operated along the lines of the secondary top model where primary teachers taught primary classes in the mornings and taught various subjects to students for the Intermediate and Leaving Certificates in the afternoons. From the mid-1960s the demand for post-primary education grew. The School responded to the demand by employing more teachers. The Department of Education was not directly involved with the provision of post-primary education and it was only with the publication of the 1965 Report on Mental Handicap that the State gradually became more involved not only in the provision of special schools and services for the learning disabled but also in the areas of education of the deaf and the blind. A Departmental Committee was set up to review the education of hearing-impaired children and it began its work in the late 1960s. The Committees report, the first official Irish Government report on the subject, was published in 1972. The report made some general recommendations about the desirability of the two Cabra schools co-operating in the provision of services. The Principal of St Josephs at the time who was a member of the Committee dissented from the opinions of the rest of the group on the question of co-operation. Although, some attempts at co-operation were made during the 1970s, no significant developments occurred. By 1989, 24 full-time permanent teachers were employed in the postprimary section of St Marys even though the post-primary section of the school did not have official status as a proper post-primary school. Technically and administratively the school operated as a special national school for the hearing impaired with a post-primary facility. The Department were anxious that serious consideration be given to the amalgamation of both schools at least at post-primary level. In their view, the post-primary sections of both schools were overstaffed and not understaffed as contended by both school principals. In correspondence between the Department of Education Special Schools section and the Manager of St Marys commencing in February 1965, the Sisters pressed the Department to sanction an extra teacher and a financial contribution towards the cost of a prefabricated building in which they proposed to establish a special class for emotionally disturbed deaf girls. The Department had no objection in principle to this proposal provided the staff pupil ratio was maintained at agreed levels. 554 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II
15.21
15.22
15.23
15.24
Nature of allegations
15.25 The complainants statements alleged physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect and emotional abuse. Twenty complainants alleged excessive corporal punishment by nuns, teachers and lay staff using a variety of implements. The complaints included allegations of punishment for using sign language by being slapped and having hands tied behind the back. Allegations were made of sexual abuse by visiting priests and the Congregation admitted that such an allegation was made against a priest, who left shortly after that and never returned. Nineteen complainants alleged neglect in respect of one or more of the following: education, food, accommodation and medical care. All of the complainants alleged emotional abuse in respect of prevention of use of sign language, segregation from other children based on hearing impairment, fear, bullying or humiliation.
15.26
15.27
15.28
15.29
Response of the Dominican Sisters

15.30 In their respondent statements, the Dominican Sisters stated the following in general terms:

15.31
They accepted that corporal punishment was used but denied that children were beaten. They stated that Oralism was the preferred option from 1947 and that signing was discouraged. They denied that a child was physically punished for signing but accepted that a child may have been slapped if they persisted. They did not respond to specific allegations of abuse against individuals due to the passage of time which they contended made it prejudicial to them.
The Department of Education decided in 1990 that their policy should be pragmatic and flexible and open to all aspects of education of the deaf including the communication issue. They decided they would have a caring and flexible system of education of every deaf child from an early age and certain modes of communication should not be seen as mutually exclusive or as having inherent or distinct qualities which made them better than others. Special schools should be encouraged to base their methods on real needs of the children not on any particular approach to the education of the deaf. Regular reviews of programmes of work and individual progress would be undertaken. With regard to post-primary education the Department saw the way forward to amalgamate St Marys and St Josephs in Cabra into a single community-type post-primary school.
555
556
Chapter 16
Mary Immaculate School for Deaf Children
Introduction
Background
16.01 In July 1955, at the request of the then Archbishop of Dublin, Dr John Charles McQuaid, the Provincial Superior of the Congregation of the Daughters of the Cross of Liege, met officials from the Department of Education with a proposal to establish a school for deaf boys aged between three and 10 years in Beechpark, Stillorgan, County Dublin. These proposals were subsequently formalised in a letter from the Provincial Superior to the Department of Education seeking recognition of Beechpark, Stillorgan as a residential school for deaf boys between the ages of three and 10 years. The Department having obtained the necessary sanction from the Department of Finance gave recognition to the School on the basis of the Congregations proposals on 10th April 1956. The School was named Mary Immaculate School for Deaf Boys. The School patron was the Archbishop of Dublin and it was owned and managed by the Congregation of the Daughters of the Cross of Liege. The School closed in 1998 due to lack of pupils. The property in Stillorgan had been purchased by the Sisters for the purposes of opening a school for deaf children. However, the property was in a state of disrepair and needed work done so, in the interim, the School operated from St Gabriels Hospital in Cabinteely. It appears that the impetus for such a school came from some parents of profoundly deaf children, who approached the Archbishop, seeking the establishment of a school for younger children, as St Josephs School for Deaf Boys in Cabra run by the Christian Brothers only took boys from the age of seven years upwards. St Marys in Cabra run by the Dominican Sisters only catered for deaf girls. The School was recognised as a special national school. It catered for profoundly deaf boys between the ages of six to nine years and served as a preparatory school for St Josephs School for Deaf Boys in Cabra.
16.02
16.03
16.04
16.05
16.06
557
Original residential school and school between 1956 and 1962.
The school from 1962.
558
The Investigation
16.07 The Investigation Committee was unable to conduct a full hearing into this institution. The principal difficulty was in obtaining statements of complainant witnesses. Protracted correspondence and discussion failed to produce agreement as to arrangements for taking statements that would be considered satisfactory. Twenty-one complaints were made to the Investigation Committee and 20 written statements were furnished. The legal team interviewed all the complainants. The result is that the investigation into the School was confined to a review of the discovered material produced by the Department of Education and Science, the Congregation of the Daughters of the Cross of Liege, the Garda Sochana, the Archbishop of Dublin and the statements furnished. The discovered material was limited in nature. A review of the discovery documents furnished did not provide any contemporary evidence to substantiate complaints. The school log, which was carefully maintained, recorded activities and outings. Progress reports on the children were maintained. The reports of the Department of Education Inspectors on the teachers were satisfactory. There are no records of complaints by parents to either the School or the Department of Education. A Garda Investigation into allegations of sexual and physical abuse at Beechpark was carried out in 2001/2002 but the Investigation Committee received information from the Chief State Solicitors Office that no file was sent to the DPP as the allegations concerned common assault and were statute barred.
16.08
16.09
Education
16.10 The school followed a primary school curriculum with emphasis on speech, lip reading and the acquisition of language. The policy in Ireland at the time was to teach children through the oral/ aural method which was widely used throughout Europe for the education of the deaf. The Congregation accepted that Oralism had its critics and did not suit every child in the school. They say that if a child was struggling, an assessment conference was convened and a decision made as to how to cater for the needs of the child. Complainants alleged that children were punished and beaten for using sign language. In their Statement the Congregation stated that children were not beaten for signing. They accepted that children were discouraged from signing and may have got a slap on the hand and/or been reprimanded verbally for doing so.
16.11
16.12
Nature of the allegations

16.13 Twenty statements of complaint were furnished by the complainants. Allegations were made against six members of the Congregation and two members of the lay staff. The school opened in 1956 and closed in 1998 and the complaints span most of that period. Sr Ernesta1 occupied a senior position in Beechpark for nearly one-third of its existence. She was described as a very strict authoritarian nun. She enforced the rule against signing and it was alleged that she slapped children who signed. The complainants also said that their education suffered because of the enforcement of Oralism. All of the complainants who were present during Sr Ernestas regime described being lined up in the morning to go to the toilet and expected to perform on demand and were punished if they
1
16.14
16.15
559
did not do so. Many of them complained of being given laxatives for this purpose. This routine was carried out every day and the children did not have privacy with regard to their toilet routine. 16.16 A number of the complainants described the food as poor and basic and that they were forced to eat it. A number of complainants stated that the food was fine, much like home-cooked food, and they could ask for extra helpings. Five other nuns were criticised, but most complaints were about Sr Ernesta. She was the nun who slapped for signing, enforced the toilet regime and force fed those who would not eat. She slept near the dormitories and supervised the children at night.
16.17
Response of the Congregation to the allegations

16.18 The Congregation acknowledged that the School followed the oral/aural method of teaching the deaf. This they said was considered at the time the best way to educate the deaf. Consequently, the children were discouraged from signing and may have got a slap on the hand and/or been reprimanded verbally for doing so. They do not accept that children were beaten for signing. They accepted that between the years 1961 and 1971 there was a toileting routine in the morning. They do not accept that the children were punished or humiliated or made the object of public derision during this toileting process. They acknowledged that some children may have unconsciously been worried about it. They accepted that today this routine would not be considered best practice, but in the late 1950s and in the 1960s it was not questioned. It ceased in 1971 when the children were divided into smaller groups. The Congregation stated that as a general rule laxatives were not arbitrarily given to any pupil, only when necessary if it was considered a child was constipated. This was done under the supervision of the school nurse who liaised with the school doctor. The Congregation stated that the food was wholesome and plain but in the early years it did not have the variety that was available from the 1970s. They believed that children were well nourished and did not accept that children were force fed. The Congregation acknowledged that Sisters carried keys for safety reasons from the late 1970s. Prior to that, the keys were hung high over the doors. They accepted that a Sister might have had a key in her hand while trying to get the attention of a profoundly deaf child who may on a rare occasion have got a tip of a key on the back of his hand to gain his attention. They accepted that this could be painful and not good practice and may remain in the memory of the person concerned. They denied that keys were used to deliberately hit the children. The Congregation supported Sr Ernesta in denying allegations that she beat the children or hit them with a stick or ruler. The School was small and the staff were a closely knit community. If she had beaten the children, Sr Ernesta would have been reported to the Manager of the school for mistreating pupils and abusing her position as Principal. Rules and regulations were necessary even if they appear harsh and unreasonable by the standards of today. Changes were made during 1971 which led to a more lenient regime. Most of this forward thinking and planning was the brain child of Sr Ernesta.
16.19
16.20
16.21
16.22
560

Ryan Report Volume II

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ryan Report Volume II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1

Institute of Charity: St Patricks, Upton, and St Josephs, Ferryhouse

Committees investigation into Upton and Ferryhouse

Sources of information: the Rome archive

The management system and staffing

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym.

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

The Rosminian approach to allegations of abuse in Ferryhouse and Upton

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

The leather straps

This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym.

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

St. Patricks Industrial School, Upton (Upton), 18891966

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

Closure of the School

Number of boys in Upton

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

The role of Prefect

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

Documentary evidence the punishment books

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

Evidence of complainant witnesses

This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym.

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym.

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

Internal survey carried out by the Rosminians

This This This This This This

pseudonym. pseudonym. pseudonym. pseudonym. pseudonym. pseudonym.

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

Conclusions on physical abuse

This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym.

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

The Rome archive

This This This This

pseudonym. pseudonym. pseudonym. pseudonym.

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

This is a pseudonym. Latin for curiosity, astonishment, surprise. This is a pseudonym.

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym.

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

This is a pseudonym. This is a pseudonym.

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

Conclusions on the Rome files 2.194

The statement of Fr Giovani

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

The Institute of Charity internal survey

Conclusions on sexual abuse

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. II

Sexual activity amongst the boys: documented cases