Explore the Ryan Report

Chapter 14 — St. Joseph’s Kilkenny

Back
Show Contents

The Group Homes

194

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 Joseph’s 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.

195

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.

196

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.

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 Joseph’s 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.

198

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 Granville’s assistance in tackling this problem.

199

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.

200

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 children’s 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.

201

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’.

Allegations of sexual abuse in the 1970s

202

In January 1995, a Garda Sergeant, stationed at Kilkenny Garda Station, began an investigation into allegations of sexual and physical abuse at St Joseph’s 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 Joseph’s during the 1970s. The first of these allegations involved Thomas Pleece,20 who was employed in St Joseph’s from 1972 until 1976, when he was summarily removed by the Resident Manager following complaints by boys.

203

The second man was Peter Tade,21 who succeeded Mr Pleece as a care worker in St Joseph’s in 1976.

204

Thomas Pleece admitted sexual abuse in St Joseph’s, as well as in St Augustine’s where he had worked previously, and also to abusing two boys fostered by him after he left St Joseph’s. He was indicted on 271 counts and received a 10-year sentence in October 1997.

205

Peter Tade was indicted on 10 counts and he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in June 1998.

206

According to the Congregation,1995 was the first time it became aware of allegations of sexual abuse in St Joseph’s.

207

After the decision to take in young boys in 1966, the Department of Education Inspectors recommended that St Joseph’s should employ male staff to help care for them. The first of these carers was Thomas Pleece.

208

The decision to close St Patrick’s and transfer the boys to St Joseph’s caused a number of problems for St Joseph’s. The girls resented the presence of the boys in the School, and it was difficult to keep boys and girls separated at night.


Footnotes
  1. This is a pseudonym.
  2. This is a pseudonym.
  3. This is a pseudonym.
  4. This is a pseudonym.
  5. This is a pseudonym.
  6. This is a pseudonym.
  7. This is a pseudonym.
  8. This is a pseudonym.
  9. This is a pseudonym.
  10. This is a pseudonym.
  11. This is a pseudonym.
  12. This is a pseudonym.
  13. This is a pseudonym.
  14. This is a pseudonym.
  15. This is a pseudonym.
  16. This is a pseudonym.
  17. This is a pseudonym.
  18. This is a pseudonym.
  19. This is a pseudonym.
  20. This is a pseudonym.
  21. This is a pseudonym.
  22. This is a pseudonym.
  23. This is a pseudonym.
  24. This is a pseudonym.
  25. This is a pseudonym.
  26. This is a pseudonym.
  27. This is a pseudonym.
  28. This is a pseudonym.
  29. This is a pseudonym.
  30. This is a pseudonym.
  31. This is a pseudonym.
  32. This is a pseudonym.
  33. This is a pseudonym.
  34. This is a pseudonym.
  35. This is a pseudonym.