Chapter 8 — Cappoquin

Sexual abuse

The Resident Manager, Sr Callida, and the house parent also attended this meeting. The witness said that part of the reason for the meeting was that the local Gardaí had been approached, but the boy was not willing to make a statement. The advice at the meeting was to contact the Garda Superintendent in the event of the boy not making a complaint. She did not speak to the boy about this matter, even though she was his social worker. She left that to his care worker, the House Parent, because she felt that only one person should speak to a child regarding matters like this.

They waited for the Gardaí to tell them how to proceed but she said that, in the meantime, the man involved had left the hotel employment. It appears from the documentation, however, that the employee did not leave the hotel until some time later, and was recorded as being an employee throughout this time. The boy also continued his employment in the same hotel during this time.

The social worker had known about the allegation of abuse earlier, from David’s mother. It appears from her records that she initially discounted the allegation, without checking either with Cappoquin or with David. She did not believe what she was being told about the abuse, as the relationship between the family members was difficult. She telephoned Sr Callida about it, who told her she would check it out but thought it was untrue. She herself did not speak to the child, nor did she speak to the care worker involved.

The House Parent, Ms Faughnan30 suspected at first that David was beginning to smoke and drink, but he denied it when confronted by her. She decided to keep a close eye on him. When she was cleaning his room, she discovered money, more than he should have had. He told her he got it from an employee of the hotel and it transpired, when she further questioned him, that he was being sexually abused in return for money.

The Resident Manager, Sr Callida, was away for the weekend when the boy revealed this to her. Ms Faughnan went straight to the Gardaí but they would not formally take a statement in the absence of the Resident Manager, who was David’s legal guardian. The House Parent then went to the hotel and confronted the employee, who admitted the abuse. She told him that she had spoken to the Gardaí and that he should leave his job, as she did not feel that the boy should have to leave because of his actions. She then contacted David’s social worker from the South Eastern Health Board and attended a meeting with the Health Board later. At that meeting, she was told that, as she had no witness to her conversation with the employee, nothing could be done. She did not feel she got any support from her superiors, and got the sense that she had overstepped her boundaries by the action she had taken. The following day, she observed that David was not at work and she was relieved that he had been kept at home. He approached her and said that he was not going to take the matter any further and was not pursuing it with the Gardaí. She questioned him as to why, and he told her he just did not want to. She noticed that he had a new radio. He told her that Sr Callida had given him a new radio and a new bicycle.

A second record of this allegation of abuse was contained in a memorandum written by a senior member of the Health Board: I visited the group home ... and learnt from the staff that David has been sexually abused by a fellow employee at his place of work. This has been reported to the local Garda, the staff in the home and myself, we are making further enquiries.

The memorandum does not advise of the previous allegation made by the family member to the social worker a month earlier.

No documentation has been discovered as to how the author of the memorandum handled the matter or how, a week later, the meeting came to be arranged at the offices of the Health Board solicitors which was attended by a senior official from the Health Board, the social worker, the House Parent of the boy who was the centre of the allegation and Sr Callida. The Health Board was concerned to establish if: (a) A complaint could be made leading to criminal prosecution; (b) What are the Boards obligations in relation to [the boy] in its voluntary guardianship capacity.

The possibility of a complaint being made on the boy’s behalf was left open. The Health Board was anxious that the boy would continue in the work placement. The advice given, as recorded in the solicitor’s note, was that: ... the knowledge of these occurrences would be extremely embarrassing for the Board’s Staff if there were to be a recurrence of these incidents and a complaint made by the parent or other parties at a later date. ... If there was any further risk to [David] of any nature then they would have to weigh this against the value of the placement to him and preferably withdraw him from the placement. I stressed to them that it was of utmost concern that they do not expose themselves to the risk of a potential complaint in relation to the care given to [David]. It would only take one incident, and a complaint arising out of same to call into question the actions of the Boards staff ...

They were advised against approaching the hotel and told instead to contact the Gardaí.

There is no record of any contact being made by either the Health Board official or the social worker with the Gardaí in this regard. However, the Health Board solicitor advised the social worker in a letter that he had spoken to the Superintendent of the Gardaí in Cappoquin who told him they had ‘taken the matter up’ with the alleged abuser prior to Christmas and this person, while unlikely to disclose anything, would: ... be in fear of the consequences of a Garda investigation and we can only hope that this will ensure his co-operation ... I think you would have to be reasonably certain that there is still a problem there before bringing serious consequences to bear on [him].

The Health Board official who attended the meeting in the solicitor’s office also gave evidence to the Investigation Committee. He commended the House Parent for personally confronting the alleged abuser and for the initiative she showed in dealing with the information she had received from the child. He was not happy in relation to the lack of support she received from Sr Callida in the follow-up to the case. He sensed that there was an active encouragement of David not to make anything more of his complaint, because of the consequences it might have for the Centre. He did not want to go as far as to say that there was a feeling that the Resident Manager had prevented a prosecution, but rather that ‘there would have been frustration that rather than an intervention being assisted it had been in some way derailed’.

He also noted that Sr Callida, although present, did not participate at the meeting in the solicitor’s office.

Sr Callida gave her version of events to the Investigation Committee. She explained that the reason why she did not get involved at the Health Board meeting was because the House Parent had looked after it from the beginning and was the liaison with the boy. When it was suggested to her that, as Resident Manager of the Centre, this was a serious matter of a sexual assault on a child in her care who had an intellectual disability, she said she did not see it as her function to deal with it or report it to the Gardaí. She left it to the House Parent to deal with it as the boy had reported to her. Sr Callida said in evidence that it was purely coincidental that the boy got a new bicycle around this time. She suggested that it might have been for his birthday and he needed a bike to get to work. She did not keep a record of this incident.

Sr Callida’s behaviour in giving the boy the bicycle made her junior colleague suspicious that she was discouraging him from pursuing a complaint or prosecution. There is no evidence that that was her motivation but, at a sensitive time in a serious case of sexual abuse, what she did was an example of extremely bad management and of irresponsibility.