Chapter 11 — Glin

Neglect and emotional abuse

The Visitor in 1961 made the customary remarks about the state of disrepair of the premises. He also commented that, when the boys left Glin, they often seemed very lost in the world: Some of them do not easily fit into their new surroundings especially those who have never known what family life should be. Many drift from job to job and eventually emigrate. The general impression of the visitor would be, I think, that the institution fulfils a useful purpose and many pupils who have been the victims of circumstances and brought up under sordid conditions are given a fresh start and are well prepared for life.

The Visitor in 1964 stated: The boys’ toilets are bad and require to be completely renovated. Being in the open and uncovered they are exposed and in wintertime this is severe on the boys. They would require to be replaced by new toilets but owing to the uncertainty with regard to the future of industrial schools this is scarcely to be recommended. The boys’ kitchen is in the same bad condition as it has always been.

The following year, the Visitor acknowledged that a substantial sum had been spent on updating the boys’ kitchen, but additional renovations had been put on hold pending a decision on the future of the School. The School closed in 1966.

Home leave was first granted in 1924 and was for a maximum of seven days per annum. It was extended in 1935 to 14 days, following an unofficial suggestion by the Cussen Commission prior to its final report. Following publication of this Report, the period was once again extended to 21 days per year, and the discretion regarding who went on home leave was transferred to the Resident Manager, who was thus allowed a certain degree of latitude in determining the length of a child’s leave.

In 1948, a further 10 days were allocated, thus increasing the total to 31 days.

Some figures for home leave from Glin between 1942 and 1966 were compiled by Br McCormack in his report. These are available primarily from the Christian Brother Annals and are set out below:26 1942: In July about 80 of the boys spent three weeks with their parents or friends (Annals). 1944: 75 boys went on home leave (Annals). 1945: 110 boys went home for a three weeks holiday in July (Annals). 1953: In August all but three of the boys returned from holidays in their homes. One of these had been taken to England by his mother, but after negotiation he was returned to the school (Annals). 1955: About 50 boys went home on holidays (Annals). 1958: About 50 boys went home on holidays (Annals). 1961: About 40 of the boys got a fortnights holiday with families who offered to take them (VR 19.4). 1962: In July, 36 boys went home for a months holidays (Annals). 1965: In July some boys went home for their holidays. In August, 36 boys went to Carne, Co. Wexford for 3 weeks holiday. Transport was provided by the Limerick Lions Club (Annals). 1966: In July, 20 boys went home on holiday and 30 went to Knockadoon. All returned on 1 August (Annals).

These figures are not absolute and are provided without context, and even contradicted on occasion by Department of Education figures; for example, in 1942, 70 not 80 boys went on home leave and, in 1944, 74 boys went on leave out of a total of 207. Some years are also missing, but can be found in records provided by the Department of Education; for instance, in 1948, the Department recorded that just 28 boys returned home that summer.

The Department’s desire to extend home leave to a wider number of children, for a greater period of time, met with resistance from a number of Resident Managers, Glin included. On 22nd November 1944, the Manager of Glin wrote to the Industrial Schools Branch of the Department of Education, defending the decision to send only 74 children out of a total of 207 on home leave. The Manager stated, ‘I kept them in the school because I had no guarantee that their friends would be able to maintain and take care of them’. He also stated in this letter that every boy in the School wrote to relatives regarding the home leave, with 74 positive replies, six negative replies and no replies in the remaining cases. Closing the letter, he remarked, ‘I did not consider it advisable to send boys on holidays to parents and relatives who did not reply’.

This hostility to home leave emerged most strongly when, in 1949, the Department of Education proposed to extend the maximum period to six weeks in a calendar year. Just seven schools were in favour of the proposal and 37 were against it, including Glin. The Resident Managers, in a letter dated 7th June 1949, stated their reasons in very clear terms: It was pointed out that when the children return from Home Leave there is always a marked disimprovement in manners and conduct; they are often very discontented, impatient of control, and physically and morally upset. All this is highly detrimental to the general spirit of the School, and it takes children quite a long time to settle down again to the ordinary routine. Numbers of them return ill-fed and sickly, in an unkempt condition, with clothes in a filthy condition. It takes weeks to get rid of the vermin. Sometimes their language is vile, having picked it up in undesirable quarters. And for some such considerations some Managers suggested that instead of extending the Home Leave period, it should be shortened. Industrial School children generally belong to the poorest families and the home conditions are often most unsuitable and undesirable. It was mentioned where a family of eight lived and slept in one room; also where a father, two girls and a boy slept in the one bed, while the mother, dying of T.B. was in a corner in a bed supplied by the Corporation. A high percentage of these children are illegitimate and their mothers are not just what they should be; others have been the victims of circumstances getting into trouble because parents or guardians failed to exercise proper control. And as it was by order of the Court that these children were committed to the Schools, it stands to reason it would not be for their betterment to allow them to return to such undesirable conditions for protracted periods. It was also said that children who could with safety be allowed six weeks’ Home Leave should not be in any Industrial School; they should be discharged to their homes and not be allowed to be parasites living on public moneys.

While many of these points may have been true, the tone of the letter shows very little understanding of the need for family contact. In Submissions, the Christian Brothers commented: The general unsuitability of the children’s homes on account of poverty, overcrowding, and lack of parental control also figured among the reasons for opposing the proposal and some Managers (number not given) even suggested that shortening of home leave would be a better option.

They added there was ‘genuine concern for the children in the opposition to extending home leave’.

boys passed through the School between 1940 and 1966. Forty percent (308) of these boys were discharged to members of their family. According to the Dunleavy Report, the School Register showed that the boys were discharged to the following relatives:

	1940–1947	1947–1966	Total
Discharged to father	50	79	129
Discharged to mother	35	60	95
Discharged to parents	20	7	27
Discharged to aunt	7	11	18
Discharged to grandmother	5	5	10
Discharged to uncle	4	10	14
Discharged to sister	4		4
Discharged to grandfather	4		4
Discharged to brother	2	5	7
SUBTOTAL	131	177	308

As can be seen, 81% of those discharged to a relative went to a parent or parents.

According to the Dunleavy Report, aftercare beyond one year was provided to boys as follows:

Years	Boys receiving more than 1 year aftercare	%
1940–1947	68	18%
1947–1966	61	15%

It is likely that most of these boys were discharged to places of employment, and had no relatives to look after them. The Brother in charge of aftercare made notes on pay, living conditions and contentedness of the boy.