- Volume 1
- Volume 2
-
Volume 3
- Introduction
- Methodology
- Social and demographic profile of witnesses
- Circumstances of admission
- Family contact
- Everyday life experiences (male witnesses)
- Record of abuse (male witnesses)
- Everyday life experiences (female witnesses)
- Record of abuse (female witnesses)
- Positive memories and experiences
- Current circumstances
- Introduction to Part 2
- Special needs schools and residential services
- Children’s Homes
- Foster care
- Hospitals
- Primary and second-level schools
- Residential Laundries, Novitiates, Hostels and other settings
- Concluding comments
- Volume 4
Chapter 9 — Record of abuse (female witnesses)
BackEmotional abuse
In addition to the fear of being sent away many witnesses believed they could be retained in the School indefinitely. This belief was partially reinforced by the fact that in many Schools there were former residents who had stayed on in the institution and became part of the staff group. Those regarded as orphans, who had no contact with their own family, described being particularly fearful of this outcome.
Witnesses also described as frightening the experience of being given responsibility for the care of babies and young children without appropriate assistance and supervision. Witnesses described the distress experienced by being made to provide care for their younger siblings and being held responsible for their conduct and behaviour, as one witness remarked ‘I was only a child myself’. They described feeling guilty when their ‘charges’ or younger siblings were punished. The allocation of age-inappropriate tasks such as fire-lighting, ironing, the operation of laundry equipment, and kitchen work were all reported as imposing a risk to safety and unreasonable expectations on a child.
Witnesses described a variety of fear inducing situations that were specific to certain staff, for example several witnesses reported being terrorised by staff who dressed up as ghosts and other figures for the purpose of frightening young residents. Others reported that staff had pet animals that they used in an intimidating manner with residents who were frightened of them. Sr ...X ... she used set the farm dogs on us, you were petrified, wherever you hid the dogs would sniff you out, you would have to climb the fence to get away from them.
One hundred and seven (107) witnesses reported that their mothers, fathers or entire families were openly denigrated by both religious and lay care staff in the Schools. In most instances the denigration took the form of verbal abuse and criticism of a witness’ mother, parents or family in the course of being berated or physically abused for some misdemeanour. ‘They would make me feel I was a nobody. They would say “you are ruined, you are ruined like your mother”, Sr ...X... and Sr ...Y... they never stopped.’ Forty (40) witnesses reported that their single mothers were the subject of specific denigration by religious staff. Witnesses stated that the severity of a beating or other physical punishment was regularly associated with remarks about the child’s mother. This was particularly so for witnesses who were non-marital children and had been in institutional care since birth. They recalled being told as they were beaten that it was for ‘the sins of your mother’ and that they would ‘end up in the gutter like your mother’. And in the month of November we used to have to pray for our mothers and fathers who died, we had to pray for them to get out of purgatory but the orphan girls, they were treated worse. They would be told “your mother is burning in hell, you will be punished for the sins of your mother, you workhouse girls”. Then one girl, she was a bit older than me, she was from the workhouse, I remember her being told by the nuns “your mother will never get out, she will be in hell, because of what she did”. • I had ear infections and was told I did not deserve any treatment. Sr ...X... told me I was a spawn of the devil and I didn’t deserve any treatment. “You are the spawn of the devil, every decent person who meets you will know you are the spawn of the devil.”
Witnesses described being told their mothers were ‘sinners’ or ‘filthy prostitutes’ and that they were in the School as a result of their mother’s sins. Hearing it said that their mothers were sinners was a cause of great distress to many witnesses, who described feeling responsible for the fact that their mothers were ‘so bad’. If you stepped out of line she ...(Sr X)... was always insulting my mother and my father, she’d say “your mother is a woman of the streets”, and every night I used be in turmoil in bed and worried about my mother on the streets. I didn’t know what she meant.... We were considered the dregs of society.... My mother was a different religion. We were made to feel so dirty and so low.
Twenty (20) witnesses described being told that their parents had rejected and did not want them, usually in the context of being punished and in conjunction with being criticised. Witnesses described this form of abuse as particularly disturbing. One day, this nun said “if you had a wish what would you wish for?” And I said, without hesitation, it just came out, “I want to find my mother”. “What?” she said “your mother gave you away, she wouldn’t have anything to do with you” she shouted. I ran out and ran to this huge big hallway. I remember sitting there and saying “what have I done, why doesn’t my mother want me?” I was so upset.... I cried myself to sleep. You had nobody ... to talk to. • She ...(Sr X)... would tell us to get dressed up, that our mother was coming up, and we’d all go up and she’d come along laughing and say “what are you smiling at? Your mother is not coming, she doesn’t want you, she doesn’t love you, she has another family”. She’d show us a photograph of our mother with a family she was working for in the town, she’d say “your mother doesn’t want you”.
Seventeen (17) witnesses reported that their mothers’ ethnicity and religion were denigrated by religious staff. Witnesses of mixed race reported being referred to by derogatory names relating to their skin colour and, along with their mothers, being subjected to racial slurs. I used to pal with ...named co-resident.... Sr ...X... used put her into a bath because she was coloured, she used to tell her there was a smell off her. No money would ever, ever, ever compensate her for what she suffered.
One witness reported that derogatory comments were initiated by the Sister in charge and taken up by other staff and girls. Her mother was described as ‘a useless English Protestant’ and when the witness was in trouble it was ascribed to her ‘Protestant blood’. Another witness reported being constantly taunted by the Sister in charge about the fact that her mother had left her and her sibling and returned to England: You lot are being kept by us, cleaning for you, feeding you, caring for you, educating you while your mother ... is in England enjoying herself and does not even bother to write to you.
A small number of witnesses further reported that their parents were humiliated when they came to visit, either by being shown into what was described as ‘the beggars’ parlour’ or being made to wait outside while their child was called. ‘The nuns told me my mother was a prostitute.... They wouldn’t let her in the gate.’
Seven (7) witnesses reported being verbally and otherwise denigrated because they were members of the Travelling community. They described being told that they came from the roadside and other residents were actively encouraged to jeer at them.
As reported elsewhere, a large number of witnesses commented on the fragmentation of their families as a result of the deprivation of contact with their siblings and relatives. This separation and loss of contact led to difficulties reintegrating with their family after they were discharged and was reported by many witnesses to be a cause of distress and anger for them, both at the time and in their subsequent lives.
Fifty five (55) witnesses reported that their parents and relatives were either forbidden or discouraged from visiting them, 28 gave accounts that family members were turned away when they arrived at the School. Witnesses who were marked from physical abuse were often not allowed visitors. Others reported that their parents were sent away if deemed to be intoxicated or otherwise unsuitable to be seen. Deprivation of family visits was reported as a routine punishment for alleged misconduct in a number of Schools. I was in there for all the 40s. There was terrible cruelity ...(cruelty)... terrible cruelity. I was writing a letter to my aunt, to tell her of the beatings. They found the note.... She ...(Sr X)... put me across that bed and gave me a terrible beating . ... I never recovered from that beating. I had to take down my clothes and take off my knickers. Oh, that beating ...distressed.... That hurt me very much. I got over the physical, but I often wondered why did they beat me like that? That was hard for me ...crying.... I had to live with that, it affected me terrible. I was not let go on holiday to my aunt that year ...crying....
Following her mother’s death, one witness reported that she and her siblings were placed in the local Industrial School despite, what she believed, was her father’s wish that they remain at home. He did odd jobs in the School for the Sisters and the witness reported not being allowed to speak to him while he was there. She described watching him through a window as he was working and hoping he would look up to see her.
Eighty three (83) witnesses reported that knowledge about their brothers and sisters was withheld or denied by those in charge of the School. The Committee heard evidence that prior to the 1970s, with few exceptions, no attempt was made to maintain contact between siblings in separate institutions or to keep witnesses informed of their siblings’ whereabouts following admission or transfer to different institutions. Some witnesses reported that they never saw their brothers or sisters again after they had left the Court on the day they were placed in the Industrial School. Others reported that information about brothers and sisters who were placed in the same institution was also withheld. Witnesses reported being denied contact with brothers who were in nearby institutions and in a number of Schools the existence of siblings was not acknowledged. He ...(witness’s brother)... came over every Sunday. She ...(Sr X)... didn’t like that. She used to try and find work for me so that I wouldn’t see him. I remember one Sunday the others asked me to get the ball, I climbed up on the scullery roof. She tied me to the stairs for this and when my brother came she sent him down to embarrass him to see his sister tied up. She then sent him up and made him wait and wait, in the end she let me up to see him when she knew he was gone. I was bitter about that.
Some older siblings reported knowing that they had family in the School but that through the arrangement of facilities, with older children separated from younger ones, they lost contact with their own siblings. ‘They separated the brothers and the sisters, if something came up that they had to tell us then you would meet them, you would be lined up.’ Other witnesses said that the practice of referring to residents by their allocated number contributed to loss of contact with their own brothers and sisters as their family name was not used. Alternately witnesses who were admitted to a School at a very young age frequently had no memory of older siblings who may have been with them and then left the School.
Footnotes
- A number of witnesses were admitted to more than one School, and made reports of abuse in more than one School, therefore the number of reports are greater than the number of witnesses.
- ‘Other Institutions’ – includes: general, specialist and rehabilitation hospitals, foster homes, primary and second-level schools, Children’s Homes, laundries, Noviciates, hostels and special needs schools (both day and residential) that provided care and education for children with intellectual, visual, hearing or speech impairments and others.
- For example: as witness evidence is presented according to the decade of discharge, a witness who spent 12 years in a school and was discharged in 1962 will have been included in the 1960s cohort although the majority of that witness’s experience will relate to the 1950s.
- Section 1(1)(a).
- In order to maintain confidentiality further details regarding the numbers of abuse reports in these Schools cannot be specified.
- Section 1(1)(b)
- One witness reported sexual abuse in more than one School.
- Section 1(1)(c) as amended by the section 3 of the 2005 Act.
- A number of witnesses were admitted to more than one School, and made reports of abuse in more than one School, therefore the number of reports are greater than the number of witnesses.
- In order to maintain confidentiality further details regarding the numbers of abuse reports in these Schools cannot be specified.
- Section 1(1)(d) as amended by section 3 of the 2005 Act.
- A number of witnesses were admitted to more than one School, and made reports of abuse in more than one School, therefore the number of reports are greater than the number of witnesses.
- In order to maintain confidentiality further details regarding the numbers of abuse reports in these Schools cannot be specified.