Chapter 8 — Cappoquin

Sexual abuse

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.

This complaint of sexual abuse was made in the late 1980s, and the House Parent had no hesitation in informing the Gardaí and the Health Board. She noticed the boy behaving unusually, investigated and discovered that he was being sexually abused. The way she discovered the abuse, followed it up and reported it were examples of proper care, which placed the boy’s interest first. The other parties involved failed in their duties. Sr Callida conveyed mixed signals as to her attitude to the issue. The Health Board failed to establish the facts, including interviewing the boy; failed to supervise the social work contacts with the boy and his family; and failed generally to act in the best interests of the boy. The actions of the Resident Manager and the Health Board suggest that damage limitation was their primary consideration. Testimony regarding befriending/foster families

Cappoquin, like most other industrial schools, operated a system whereby children were sent to ‘befriending/foster families’ during holiday periods. Two of the witnesses described very different experiences. One was sent with his brother to a wonderful family. He loved going there so much that he wanted the family to adopt him. The other witness described staying with a befriending family for a few months, during which time he met an older man who worked in a local youth centre. This man showed him a lot of affection, so he requested his house mother in Cappoquin to allow him to move in with him. Permission was given and he moved in. The man repeatedly sexually abused him.

The witness said that the experience had a lasting effect on his sexuality, and that he encountered many difficulties in life forming relationships. The Sisters submitted that, as regards this alleged abuse carried out by a third party outside the School, it is difficult to see how the Sisters could have any case to answer in terms of the inability to foresee the abuse.

There appears to have been no system for vetting families or of aftercare and, the children themselves were ill-prepared to deal with abuse or exploitation when they left the convent.

A Garda investigation into Cappoquin uncovered serious sexual abuse of younger boys by some older boys. One of the perpetrators admitted sexually abusing boys there. He said that he himself had been abused whilst in care and that, when he was moved to Cappoquin, he knew no better. In his statement, he admitted abusing a pupil whilst there, and this pupil gave evidence to the Investigation Committee, where he described how he had been subjected to sexual assault, including rape, by older boys in Cappoquin. When one of these boys beat his brother badly, he stopped the beating by threatening to tell the Resident Manager what was happening. The sexual abuse stopped after he threatened to tell. This witness also told the Investigation Committee that he observed older boys taking younger boys into their beds at night and he suspected what was going on.

Another witness described how he saw ‘the lads having sex with each other inside in the home’.

Children were left in the care of older boys in the evening, and this practice allowed physical and sexual abuse to occur. The failure to protect children from such abuse was a reckless and negligent breach of duty on the part of the Sisters of Mercy.

General conclusions

General conclusions 1. Many of the faults of the Institution were caused by inept management at local level in the group homes and in the Cappoquin Community. The structure of the Sisters of Mercy, which limited the pool of Sisters who could be appointed as Resident Manager, was a contributory factor, but there was a fundamental failure by the Institution and the Community to give priority to the interests of the children in their care. 2. Sisters who gave evidence lacked understanding of the nature and extent of the malfunction of the Institution and the impact on the children. Even at this remove, some expressed concern for their fellow Sisters but did not feel that, as a Congregation, they let the children down. Lay staff confirmed that most of the Sisters in Cappoquin were cold and unfeeling towards the children, although one or two Sisters were mentioned by complainants as being kind and caring. 3. Organisations providing care for the needy and vulnerable must have procedures for monitoring the service, but this was not the case in this Institution. The Community in Cappoquin was inward-looking and motivated by loyalty to its own members, to the detriment of the children in care. 4. The Department of Education complained about the neglect in the School in the 1940s, but it was unable to effect any change for far too long. 5. The Department was negligent in inspecting the institution from the mid 1960s onwards and failed to identify the dysfunction in the group homes in the 1980s. 6. The Department of Health did not provide regular supervision of the children whom it placed in Cappoquin and did not carry out proper inspections. The children were let down by those who purported to look after and protect them.