Chapter 14 — Children’s Homes

Witnesses

On the basis of the information provided by witnesses at their hearings it is understood that their pathways of entry into Children’s Homes varied depending on their age, gender, family circumstances, and the context of their admission. The following section outlines the pre-admission social and family circumstances of the 61 witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee, and was provided by them on the basis of what was known to them from their own family history and from official records.

As indicated in Table 66, 22 of the witnesses were over 60 years of age at the time of their hearing and three witnesses were under 40 years, with the majority of witnesses reporting abuse in Children’s Homes being in their 50s and 60s, as follows:

Age range	Males	Females	Total witnesses
20–29 years	2	0	2
30–39 years	0	1	1
40–49 years	12	2	14
50–59 years	10	12	22
60–69 years	11	8	19
70 + years	3	0	3
Total	38	23	61

Forty three (43) of the 61 witnesses who gave evidence about abuse in Children’s Homes reported that they were born in Dublin. Sixteen (16) witnesses were born in 11 other Irish counties, and two were born outside the State.

More than half of the witnesses reported that they were born into two-parent households, including those where parents were subsequently widowed or separated, as Table 67 illustrates:

Marital status of parents	Males	Females	Total witnesses
Married	17	10	27
Single	9	7	16
Separated	4	4	8
Widowed	1	1	2
Co-habiting	2	0	2
Unavailable	5	1	6
Total	38	23	61

There were some gender differences in the information provided by male and female witnesses in these categories. A slightly higher proportion of female witnesses reported being born to single mothers, while more male witnesses stated that they had no information about their family of origin.

Most witnesses provided information regarding their family background and Table 68 indicates the occupational status or estimated skill level of their parents at the time of admission, reported by the witnesses:5

Occupational status	Males	Females	Total witnesses
Professional worker	4	2	6
Managerial and technical	1	0	1
Non-manual	3	2	5
Skilled manual	1	3	4
Semi-skilled	3	0	3
Unskilled	18	12	30
Unavailable	8	4	12
Total	38	23	61

Thirty (30) witnesses reported that their parents were unskilled at the time of their admission, by contrast with 12 witnesses who reported their parents were professional, managerial or non-manual workers. Generally, witnesses admitted to the Children’s Homes from other institutional settings were unable to report any detailed information about their parents’ occupational status. Many of those witnesses had been in out-of-home care since infancy.

Many of the 61 witnesses who gave evidence about their experiences of abuse in Children’s Homes were residing outside Ireland at the time of their hearing, as shown in Table 69:

Country of residence	Males	Females	Total witnesses
Ireland	28	11	39
UK	6	11	17
USA/Canada	3	0	3
Australia/New Zealand	1	0	1
Mainland Europe	0	1	1
Total	38	23	61

As illustrated in the above table there was a notable difference between the numbers of male and female witnesses living in Ireland and in the UK. Female witnesses’ country of residence was equally divided between Ireland and the UK, with almost half of the witnesses living in each country at the time of their hearing, whereas the majority of male witnesses were resident in Ireland.

Fifty five (55) witnesses reported having a total of 224 siblings. Six (6) witnesses reported that they were lone children. Thirty eight (38) witnesses, 23 male and 15 female, reported having 111 siblings in out-of-home care.

Witnesses gave accounts of out-of-home care being provided for their siblings in a range of settings including Industrial Schools, foster care, special needs services, and Children’s Homes.

There were some differences in the admission circumstances of the 61 witnesses to Children’s Homes compared with those admitted to Industrial or Reformatory Schools. Most witnesses stated that they were admitted to the Homes on a voluntary basis without the involvement of court proceedings. A small number of witnesses informed the Committee that they believed they were placed in Children’s Homes on an order of the court under the Children Act, 1908 following an application by the local health authority or the Health Board.

Thirty nine (39) witnesses, 24 male and 15 female, reported that their first admission to a Children’s Home was directly from their family home. Many of the witnesses reported that members of their extended family had been involved in their care and that they were admitted in the context of parental illness, death, marital separation or abandonment. Five (5) of the 39 witnesses stated that they were admitted from the homes of extended family members. Three (3) female witnesses reported that their fathers, who were either widowed or had sole custody, were encouraged by local clergy to place their daughters in out-of-home care. They gave accounts of learning from family members that it was perceived to be inappropriate at the time for lone fathers to rear female children.

Fifteen (15) witnesses, eight male and seven female, reported that the Children’s Homes were their second or third placements having previously been in other settings, including hostels, county homes, foster care, and mother and baby homes. Three (3) of these witnesses reported spending up to four years in mother and baby homes along with their mothers and a further four witnesses stated that they were placed in mother and baby homes without their mothers. Some witnesses believed their working mothers had contributed financially for the care provided in the mother and baby homes. Others commented that due to a lack of family or State support their mothers had no alternative but to place them in out-of-home care. Four (4) of the witnesses reported being transferred to Children’s Homes following a brief placement in Industrial Schools where they were initially admitted on court orders under the Children Act, 1908 or the School Attendance Acts, 1926 to 1967.

Seven (7) witnesses provided no information or reported that they had no knowledge of their family circumstances prior to their admission to out-of-home care. A number of these witnesses believed they were abandoned as infants. Age on first admission to out-of-home care