Chapter 7 — Goldenbridge

Neglect

On 28th June 1945, Dr McCabe noted that the clothing was ‘fair’ but ‘could be improved’. No further information is provided regarding how the clothes could be improved or the problem with them. The following year on 1st March 1946, she again described the clothes as ‘fair’ but added that they were ‘to be improved now that stocks are more easily obtained’. The Department of Education’s Inspector wrote to Sr Bianca on 22nd March 1946 on foot of Dr McCabe’s inspection, stating: It is observed that the children’s clothing is not as good as it should be and it is hoped that with the supply position becoming easier, steps will be taken to make the necessary improvement in this matter.

By 1948, the clothing had improved. Dr McCabe described it as ‘good’. The same description was given following her visits in 1949 and 1951. From 1952 onwards, Dr McCabe reported that the clothes were ‘very good’. In her General Inspection Report of May 1955, she provided more detail on the quality of the clothing, stating: Brightly coloured attractive hand knit jumpers and skirts ... children very well groomed.

Dr McCabe did use the term ‘very good’ in her Inspection Reports to describe clothing from 1956.

Dr Lysaght, when he took over from Dr McCabe, commented in his report of 21st March 1966 that the clothes were ‘good and sufficient’. From then on until the closure of the School, the clothing of the children was not an issue.

Sr Alida in her evidence revealed the nature and quality of the clothing of the children when she first arrived in Goldenbridge: The clothes were all handmade at that time, there wasn’t a single garment that was bought. Skirts were made, nightdresses made and they were very basic altogether, the clothes were ... made from grey flannelette mainly.

She confirmed that clothes were handed down from child to child: ... They were passed down along the line. They lasted a long time. The nightdresses were grey flannelette mostly ... and those things had a long life compared with the garments we are wearing today, so there wasn’t much new bought or many new clothes.

She acknowledged, however, that the clothing improved gradually from the time when she arrived: the poverty stricken look that was in Goldenbridge when I went there changed gradually, everything changed bit by bit. The clothes improved ...

When Sr Alida was asked whether she was aiming to get the children good clothing that wouldn’t mark them out as institutionalised, and whether she dressed the children up nicely on specific occasions, she replied: What we had in the early days was certainly institutional gear. There has been complaints that the children were dressed up for occasions. I will be quite honest that the children were dressed up ... because there were visitors.

Sr Gianna, who worked in the School in the early 1960s, had a very positive opinion of the clothing situation, and stated that: My first impression when I came to the School was that the children had just beautiful clothes. I would also remember the Sisters in the convent, the children used to come up on a Sunday for Mass and a lot of the Sisters would make comment about how lovely they looked. They always had lovely white socks up to her knees, in the summer short white socks. They might have black patent shoes. They had lovely pleated skirts and none of them were the same, they were all different types of checks or plaids. They had nice coloured jumpers, different types of jumpers. I would have always seen them as very well clad.

Several of the witnesses complained that, when they first arrived in the School, their clothes were taken off them. One witness recalled being given clothes by people who took her out of Goldenbridge on holidays: Once you gave them up for the wash you mightn’t see them again.

She specifically remembered that her ‘... confirmation dress was sent over from England. I wore it on my confirmation day, I never saw it again. I can still see it now, it was a red and white dress’.

One witness described her distress when she decided not to go to her mother’s funeral due to the nature and quality of her clothing: Immediately I could see that we would stand out. We were looking different to other people. We had these institutional haircuts, up here somewhere, cut like a bowl around your head, and I was going to be dressed what I’d like to call urchin ... Disgusting clothes. That’s not what I wore when I went out at the weekend to be with my father. I wore clothes he bought for me.

Another witness stated that, when she attended secretarial college while at Goldenbridge, she felt out of place due to her appearance and clothing: When you went to that place I was about 14 and a half and all these girls coming in, I am not vain, I don’t go by appearances but my clothes were raggy compared to the young women that were going there.

This sentiment was echoed by a complainant who remembered how their clothing labelled them: ... we were labelled, we had it here, institution, Goldenbridge ... it was the way we walked, talking about walking. It was the clothes we wore. We tried to be fashionable and were big frumps.

Another witness was extremely critical of the changes of clothing and the clothing in general: There was very little changing of clothing. I think I wore – I know when I went in first we wore like what they wear in Dickens’s days, the pinafore. That was left on us for months and months and months, we didn’t change that.