Chapter 8 — Cappoquin

Neglect

The children were let down by poor supervision and monitoring from the Departments of Education and Health. Mr Granville, the Inspector, identified staff problems in 1981. He thought that the Resident Manager was young and inexperienced. Right up to his last report, he continued to have concerns about staff rostering and the erosion of continuity with the children due to staff changes. Mr Granville had no responsibility for the Health Board children who were coming and going in the home, with little or no contact or support from social workers.

Responsibility for Cappoquin was transferred from the Department of Education to the Department of Health from 1st January 1984, but until 1991 inspections were not carried out because of lack of staff.

The South Eastern Health Board was aware of rumours, in the mid-1980s, that the Resident Manager was absenting herself from the Centre and was drinking heavily. There was no formal inspection system. An official paid a surprise visit to the Centre, when he found the Resident Manager present. He was satisfied with what he saw and did not take any action. He did not speak to any of the children or to the staff or to the nuns in the Community. The Resident Manager was removed in the early 1990s for the very concerns that were being spoken about.

In its Submission to the Investigation Committee, the Congregation pointed out that suspicions of child abuse did not form any part of the reason for the dismissal of the Resident Manager by the Superior in the early 1990s. It submitted that all the evidence and contemporaneous documents were consistent with the reason for her dismissal being her inappropriate drinking and major staff communication problems, with the obvious knock-on effect these had for the children in the home.

The Congregation submits that discreet steps were taken in response to concerns expressed by members of the Community and by people outside. One sister was asked to be a companion to Sr Callida in the hope that she would be a good influence because she did not drink. However, that did not happen. Instead, as the Congregation submission put it, the two nuns: developed a relationship with each other. This may have had an impact on [Sr Melita’s] capacity to observe [Sr Callida’s] behaviour in an objective manner. It was one of several unusual aspects to the Cappoquin story involving [Sr Callida] as to the manner in which (informal) human arrangements for monitoring her ran into the sand. In the event, [Sr Melita] did not transmit any concerns about [Sr Callida] to anyone in leadership. The submission refers to another nun, Sr Serena, who was ‘specifically asked to report to the diocesan leadership about whether or not there was any substance to the rumours about ‘Sr Callida’s drinking’. The Diocesan Leader was reassured that there was not but the submission admits that the system for monitoring Sr Callida failed ‘for unusual and unexpected reasons.’ This unusual matter was the development of a relationship between [Sr Callida] and [Sr Serena], which compromised [Sr Serena] and prevented the reporting system devised by [Sr Viola] from working effectively. The result was that no information of a drink problem or of any other problems reached the ears of the leadership from internal congregation sources.

There was a conflict of evidence between Sr Viola, the senior diocesan nun, and Sr Serena, the local head, as to the latter’s role in monitoring Sr Lucilla. Sr Serena testified that the only brief she had was to befriend Sr Callida and encourage her to become closer to the Community. She denied that she was ever asked to report specifically to the Diocesan Leadership about whether or not there was any substance to the rumours about the drinking. The Congregation has submitted that there was a system for monitoring Sr Callida but, for unusual and unexpected reasons, the system failed.

The problems that faced Mr Lloyd, when he arrived in Cappoquin in the early 1990s, clearly did not arise overnight. The problems were long standing and had deteriorated steadily over the years. It was well known amongst staff and members of the Congregation that the Resident Manager was drinking heavily. A number of Sisters believed that the drinking began after the death of a pupil in the late 1970s. She had been spoken to a number of times about the matter. The Resident Manager was in denial and, when one particular lay staff member complained to her about alcohol consumption on the premises, she was dismissed. Certainly, by the mid-1980s the leaders of the Community had expressed concern to the Superior of the convent about the Resident Manager’s drinking, but it took the resignation of two young lay staff members in the early 1990s to force them to address the issue properly. The mid-1990s

The Superior General of the Sisters of Mercy, kept a detailed diary of the events that unfolded over this period and recorded allegations, complaints and concerns about Sr Callida.

In the early 1990s, Sr Callida told the Superior General that she had obtained a position with the Health Board in a project involving the care of a young man. The Superior General informed the Health Board of her concern about Sr Callida’s suitability for the post because of the complaints that had come to her notice, including information from Mr Lloyd. In the course of the resulting Health Board investigation, it emerged that one of the Board’s own senior social workers had given Sr Callida a glowing reference, even though he knew that she had been dismissed from her job in Cappoquin.

The Health Board did not look beyond the social worker’s reference and offered Sr Callida the job. This happened, despite the fact that the Chief Executive Officer of the Health Board had been informed in the early 1990s of Sr Callida’s dismissal, and she herself had been in communication with the Health Board disputing her removal. The social worker should not have given the reference and was seriously at fault in doing so. The Health Board should have been able, from its records, to notice the discrepancy between the favourable reference and the fact that the candidate had been dismissed from her previous post.

Sr Callida left the Congregation in the mid 1990s. Shortly after that, the Superior General was asked for a reference for the former Sr Callida, and she recorded her response in her diary: Phone call from XXX in Dublin looking for a reference for [Callida]. Asked the nature of work – laundry for hospitals. Told her she had been a member of the congregation. She asked what was my connection with her – diocesan superior. I said that I believed she was a hard worker when in hospital for the elderly. She said I seemed hesitant. Told her I did not really know [Callida].

In the late 1990s, the matron of another institution contacted the Sisters of Mercy to complain at the failure of the Congregation to inform her fully of Callida’s background. A senior member of the Congregation testified that the overall policy with regard to references was that of being honest and upright.

Sr Callida was an incompetent manager who exhibited a lack of basic management skills including rostering, proper record keeping, communicating with staff and children, consistency and avoiding favouritism. Each of these deficiencies would have represented a serious flaw in a Resident Manager but, taken together, they constituted a disastrous mixture. She consumed alcohol in front of the children to excess and she was drunk and incapable on occasion. Her behaviour was unpredictable and irrational; she bullied the staff and occasionally beat the children. Sr Callida exposed children to additional risk by going away unannounced leaving the children in the charge of junior staff who had no way of contacting her and also by permitting male outsiders to have access to the home and to stay overnight even when she was not there. It was wrong for the Resident Manager to have children sleeping in her bedroom and for her and the Sister with whom she was conducting a relationship to take children away for weekends to hotels to stay in ‘family rooms’. Congregation witnesses admitted to some knowledge of Sr Callida’s behaviour, but did not feel they could do anything about it, and the situation drifted on over 12 years until it developed into a crisis. There was no proper supervision of the Manager. The Community did not have the interests of the children as their priority. Any action taken by the Congregation focussed exclusively on the Resident Manager. The children were not considered. The Health Board neglected its supervisory function in respect of children for whom it was responsible. One of its senior Health Board officials permitted his friendship with the Resident Manager, to cloud his judgment, and he failed to recognise gross failures of management as a result. No proper reviews were carried out by the Board’s social workers. The children in Cappoquin were let down and endangered by each of the institutions and agencies in whose care they were placed, by the persons in positions of authority over them, and by persons in supervisory roles. They were fortunate to have care workers who were more dedicated to their tasks and more committed to the interest of the children than their superiors.

Physical abuse

In their Submission to the Investigation Committee, the Sisters of Mercy stated that the Committee was not in a position to reach firm conclusions on allegations of physical abuse ‘as distinct from the reasonable use of corporal punishment’ where the events alleged arose over 35 years ago. They accepted that corporal punishment was used in Cappoquin and ‘regret its use and its impact on the children’.

From the total of nine ex-residents who appeared before the Committee, the majority described one or more incidents of physical punishment.