Chapter 7 — Goldenbridge

Sexual abuse

The girl who had been sexually assaulted by the caretaker reported the matter to Sr Alida, who immediately informed the Gardaí. 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 Gardaí. 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.

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.

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 family’s 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.

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.

He went on to describe that the nature of the play was sexual.

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 girl’s private parts. My memory is this happened on more than one occasion.

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

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 Education’s 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 children’s 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. (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.

The Sisters of Mercy noted in their Opening Statement that this lecture ‘tells us much of the thinking and practice at Goldenbridge’.