Chapter 7 — Goldenbridge

Neglect

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 children’s 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.

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.

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.

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.

They also stated that the: more extreme allegations concerning inadequate food for the children are not accepted.

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.

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 McCabe’s 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.

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.