Chapter 8 — Cappoquin

Neglect

Sr Callida’s removal came as a shock to Sr Serena, who claimed that she had no idea that things had deteriorated as badly as they had by the early 1990s. However, she knew of the problems that caused so much distress to the staff. She was aware that some ex-pupils regularly stayed overnight in Group Home A, and she was also aware that these men were sometimes drunk and would be dangerous around young children. She was also aware that Sr Callida absented herself from the home for long periods and that she regularly drank, sometimes in the company of Sr Serena. What was clear from Sr Serena’s evidence was that she never considered the safety or welfare of the children in Group Home A. She professed herself as shocked at the evidence of the care workers who described conditions as dirty and neglectful. In her own evidence, she said that she considered the children were ‘spoiled’: If I had seen anything, if ever I had seen anything in relation to the children in Cappoquin that worried me or upset me, because I was a teacher and because I had care for children, I would have been very – I would have done something about it. But I didn’t see anything. I didn’t see anything that really concerned me in relation to the staff treating the children, or anyone treating the children badly.

Sr Serena conceded that she did not really know what her responsibilities were in Cappoquin: I see what you are saying, I suppose really now that we are talking this is probably the first time ever that I have had to sit down and really think about my role, because it has been put to me the way you have been. I suppose it was all laissez faire. It was all a bit nebulous, it was, because it only now really, as you ask those questions now, I know what you are saying, I have to say I wouldn’t have seen that connection. It was all a bit nebulous, yes it was, everything was a bit nebulous, really.

She said that, although she was seriously compromised in the carrying out of her duties in Cappoquin, none of the other 10 Sisters who were resident there ever said anything to her or to Sr Viola: They probably noticed that I was spending more time down there than I should have. I tried – I think I would say I tried not to neglect my duties above. I loved them dearly and I spent a lot of time with them and I tried to do my work there as well as I could.

Sr Callida’s removal as Resident Manager did not end the problems caused by her time in charge there. She bitterly resented her removal and defended her record in Group Home A vehemently. She continued living in the convent for two years after her removal, and interfered with the committee that had been put in place by Sr Viola to run the homes pending the appointment of a new Resident Manager. This interference continued intermittently until she eventually left the Congregation in the mid-1990s.

Sr Clarice was a retired teacher in the primary school who had a ‘fair’ degree of contact with the children in the group homes. She recalled that, in the early 1990s, Sr Viola asked her to help out the staff in the group homes and to ‘be there to help them’. She was already aware that the staff were having difficulties with Sr Callida at the time and, although she says she did not know the specifics, ‘I think they were getting contradictory messages about the children who were in the home and they were stressed’.

Sr Callida persisted in making contact with some of the children, by meeting them outside the home. She was particularly obstructive when attempts were made to unite one girl with her mother. This was a child with whom Sr Callida had had a close bond, which was a matter of concern to the management committee.

Sr Callida accepted that there were times when she drank a lot, but did not agree with the witnesses who testified as to the extent of her drinking: ‘I don’t accept – what’s the word I am looking for? The bigness of it’.

She denied that her drinking was problematic: ‘There was never a time when I was out of order or didn’t know my place or was falling all over the place. I dispute that’.

Sr Callida was asked to comment on the appropriateness of conducting intimate relationships with two of the Sisters in the presence of the children. She did not accept that she had a relationship with one of the Sisters and stated: The one I acknowledge had nothing to do with the house. In my room there were two beds and we had a bed each and that was that. But there was an occasion or two outside of the home when it wasn’t appropriate.

She denied that she had favourites amongst the children, or that she favoured Group Home A over Group Home B. She believed that she had a good relationship with staff members, apart from Ms Waters who she described as ‘kind of aloof’. She did not accept the evidence of Ms Waters that staff were frustrated, and that staff and children were unhappy. She believed at the time that Ms Waters was making these allegations and complaints out of spite.

Although she accepted that some people stayed overnight in the homes from time to time, ‘I don’t accept that they were allowed roam around’. She said that the only people who stayed over were past pupils and her own brother. She did not accept evidence from the staff members that one past pupil in particular was a regular visitor and was often drunk: No, I never saw Mr Owens drunk. But ... his co-ordination was so poor that he fumbled and stumbled. ... Mr Owens stayed twice.

She did not accept the belief, held by members of staff and some members of the Community, that she had a domineering and intimidating management style and that people feared her, nor did she accept the evidence that, following her removal, she was insubordinate and interfered with the new management in the group homes.

Even at this remove, Sr Callida was unable to explain to the Committee what went wrong in Cappoquin during her tenure: ‘I don’t know what went wrong. I just don’t know ... Because we had great times and good times and happy times’.’

It was clear from her evidence to the Investigation Committee that Sr Callida did not have any real insight into how she was perceived by other people. She believed she was a good manager, that the children and staff were happy, and that staff problems stemmed from the personality of one member of staff who was spiteful towards her.

One of the Sisters who gave evidence gave a description of Sr Callida’s personality as one of great power that seemed to work towards negating the power of others. She was intimidating and forceful. This evidence was challenged, and it was suggested that the Congregation was taking a one-sided view of her relationships with people. There was, however, evidence from staff members as to the difficulties they had in communicating with her. She had a divisive style of management and was not well disposed to any criticism or suggestions.