Chapter 8 — Cappoquin

Neglect

He noted that there were 29 children divided between two group homes, and the Resident Manager had 23 in the old building. She assured Mr Granville that she would make a sincere effort to create another separate unit to accommodate 12 younger children in the near future without support from the Department of Education. The 11 remaining children could then be housed more comfortably in the Institution with some re-arrangement of the existing rooms. Staff shortages, and one or two particularly difficult children, were stretching the capabilities of the staff. He met all the staff, including lay staff, and discussed the needs of the children on this visit.

In a follow-up letter, Mr Granville set out in clear terms the steps to be taken to improve the situation. These included the discharge of a number of children, regular reviews of the children’s progress, regular staff meetings, and better contact with the social workers with regard to Health Board children, and he enclosed a number of Master Index Books for record keeping. He decided for the time being not to transfer some of the younger children out of Cappoquin, on the assurance from the Resident Manager that she would follow up the proposed new unit.

A bungalow was purchased by the Congregation in 1976, and the Department agreed to help with the cost.

By November 1976, the old building had been vacated and replaced by the two purpose-built group homes and the new bungalow.

This was when the Industrial School ceased. Letters and correspondence from then on appeared on notepaper headed St Michael’s Childcare Centre.

Children were sent to Cappoquin not because it was suitable for their needs but to keep the Institution open. When falling numbers jeopardised the existence of the School, the nuns threatened to resign their certificate unless more children were assigned to Cappoquin, and the Department acceded to the request, notwithstanding the serious deficiencies of which it was aware. The Department’s own files contained evidence of the troubled history, inadequate facilities and poor management in the Industrial School which should have led to serious concerns about the placement of more children there.

For the period 1977 to 1990, the average number of children accommodated in the three new group homes was approximately 50. It appears from the documentation that the aim was to try to get this number reduced to an average of 30 between two group homes, Group Home A and Group Home B, with 15 in each.

In the late 1970s, the Resident Manager, Sr Rosetta,6 notified the Department that she had appointed Sr Callida,7 then House Parent in Group Home A, to be her deputy.

In May 1978, the three group homes had between them 48 children under the care of 10 full-time staff.

In 1978, Mr Graham Granville carried out a three-day general inspection and, overall, he was satisfied with the homes. He was not happy at the lack of social work support for the children, but commented favourably on other aspects of the facility. He thought the environment in the group homes was excellent, although he did highlight the need for refurbishment in the two original houses.

Mr Granville observed that there was a major problem on the educational front if the children were to be considered for technical/vocational schools. He also noted that no male staff had been employed because (a) no suitable candidate had applied, and (b) past experiences had caused problems of quality of personnel.

In a letter to Sr Rosetta, he outlined some of his observations and recommendations. He said that: ... overall there has been constructive valuable improvement in the residential child care policy that is showing results in the elements of human relations and child development.

He went on to praise the contributions of the three Sisters who had taken charge of the three group homes: The influence of Sisters [Isabella], [Eloisa]8 and [Callida] is to be commended within the group homes. And consequently their direction and evidence of the care staff is meaningful.

He recommended that punishments should be recorded, and that the Manager maintain a record of major punishments that may be administered, noting the name of the child, date of punishment, reason for punishment and punishment administered.

No record of corporal punishment was kept.