Chapter 7 — Artane

Neglect

A witness, who was discharged from Artane at the age of 16 in the mid-1960s, was sent to work on a poultry farm, having received training in this area. He stayed there for two years and was very badly treated: ‘I was given less than 2 a week, I was hardly being fed, and kicked like a football’. However, he said, it was better than life in Artane.

Another witness said: We were not trained in how to live amongst society, we were brought up in a society where we all had to fight to keep our corner and stand up to bigger boys who bullied you or tried to get you to do things that you didn’t want to do, take your food off the table or whatever. So it was a constant battle to stand up and be counted or be put down, one or the other. Unfortunately that’s the way my life went in the early part of my years from Artane. It was always the same, I always thought people were talking about me, people were ganging up on me and I would lose my head. I would just lash out and hit people.

A respondent, who worked in Artane in the 1950s, gave evidence that echoed the evidence of the complainants. On the one hand, he believed the boys were looked after in terms of education, training and food, but he questioned how well prepared they were for life after leaving Artane.

Mr Dunleavy commented on aftercare: The provision of after care was one of the statutory requirements of the industrial school system, and the School was supposed to have some regard to the welfare of its former pupils until they attained 18 years of age. In practice both archival records and interviews with Christian Brothers who worked at Artane indicate that aftercare, such as it was, was a very hit-or-miss affair. The Brother in charge of aftercare was responsible for trying to secure full or licensed employment for the boys and then monitoring their progress, usually for two years. In practice employers made representations to the Brother responsible for aftercare and if they were considered suitable, boys were assigned to work for them. Boys were often left unmonitored in their new positions and the only information the school had in relation to them was that provided by the boys themselves should they choose to write to the School during the early course of their employment. The low priority with which aftercare was regarded is indicated by the fact that of the two Brothers who were in charge for many years, Br. Colbert was quite an elderly man while Br. Leon was known to be an extreme eccentric, and neither man was even provided with the services of a motor car to attempt to visit the boys who were to be found in employment throughout the country.

In conclusion: The objective of aftercare was to ensure the welfare of the boys following their discharge from Artane. It was often conducted, however, without direct contact with them. It would appear that post-discharge inquiries were conducted mainly with employers, to establish their satisfaction with the boy. Insofar as aftercare did occur, and subject to the limitations set out above, it was more extensive than the ex-residents were aware of. Many were surprised when they saw documentation showing the level of contact maintained between the School and their employer. Direct communication with boys who had left Artane would have had a positive impact. Failure to provide more of it represented a missed opportunity to extend support and encouragement to boys after discharge.

Dr Anna McCabe carried out General and Medical Inspections of Artane between 1939 and 1963. Before she resigned from her position in 1965, she prepared a report on the industrial and reformatory schools system in Ireland dated 29th February 1964, in which she made specific reference to Artane. Although critical of specific aspects of care in Artane, Dr McCabe was complimentary of the overall management of the Institution. She regarded the School as very well run, and described the boys as healthy and well looked after. She was satisfied with the medical care available to the School, which she noted involved weekly visits from a GP and regular attendances by a dentist.

Scabies and chilblains were identified as problems in the 1940s and, in 1944, with 100 cases of scabies identified by Dr McCabe, she expressed her dissatisfaction with the medical record-keeping in the School, as very few records were kept at all.

In 1946, Br Tyce wrote to Dr McCabe on behalf of the Disciplinarian, requesting permission for the height and weight of the boys to be measured every six months rather than every three months as ‘it is very troublesome here on account of the very large number of boys; and it affects the different departments of the Institution’. He received a terse response from Dr McCabe dismissing the proposal. By 1948, Dr McCabe noted with satisfaction that the medical records were well kept.

After another criticism of record-keeping in the mid-1950s, her Report of 1958 recorded that she was satisfied in this regard. She also noted that the children were examined by medical personnel from Dublin Corporation, which ensured that they could avail of free ophthalmologist and dental care funded by the local authority. However, while the local authority carried out medical examinations on all of the boys, it was only prepared to pay for spectacles and dental treatment required by boys from Dublin. In her 1956 Report she suggested that the dentist be requested to fill teeth rather than extract them.

In the early 1960s, a high proportion of children were treated in the School infirmary compared to the numbers sent to hospital. Also of interest during this period was a significant number of boys classed as noticeably below average physique.

Mr Dunleavy’s report observed that the infirmary was run ‘in a somewhat haphazard manner’: When qualified staff left the infirmary they were not replaced and indeed a Christian Brother who was suffering from mental illness at the time was placed in charge of the infirmary.

He referred to the situation that arose in 1959, and which is recorded in the annals, when the nurse handed in her notice and it ‘was decided not to replace her but instead to hand over the running of the infirmary to a member of the Community’. Mr Dunleavy also cited the Visitation Report for late 1959, which states: The arrival of Br Danton,86 who is a mental case, created the problem of trying to get him something to do ... He was tried in charge of the infirmary but had little or no control over the children and would even send them to the medicine chest to get their own medicines.

His interviews with Christian Brothers confirmed that the infirmary was run in an amateur fashion.

At the public Phase I hearing, Br Reynolds commented on Br Danton’s appointment to the infirmary. He rejected the Visitor’s description of the Brother’s mental condition, and he did not appear to regard it as a major example of incompetence or failure of care. He said: I would say a number of things about it. First of all, obviously I know who the Brother was, I knew the Brother and I would not agree with the description of the Visitor, but so be it. Secondly, I would say that he wasn’t a teaching Brother and I don’t think the criticism was in relation to the mental soundness of the person. I think the main criticism was here was somebody that was sent in and he does not seem to be able to fulfil any role, so essentially I think the Visitation Report said that he was a negative quantity in the place. I would take that certainly I presume not in the community and from religious observance, but from the point of view that his work rate wasn’t very good and his contribution wasn’t adequate in the eyes of the Visitor. As you wisely say, why not take him out. The simple fact of the matter was he was left there, they tried him in a number of situations, they didn’t work and eventually he was moved on. During part of that time incidentally, the Brother in question was studying in university, he wasn’t a full-time member of the staff.

Dr Lysaght had visited the School in Spring 1966 and was critical of the medical record-keeping. He revisited in September and noted that record-keeping had improved. He noted that the boys’ weight and height were recorded every quarter, by their teachers in class, to cause minimum disruption. He said that, ‘In general the boys impressed me as healthy, well nourished and physically fit’. He carried out a spot check on a sample of boys and found a large number had tooth decay. Dr Lysaght recommended that a dentist by assigned to the School but, again, the issue of who would pay for the service was raised.