Chapter 4 — Residential child welfare in Ireland 1965-2008

Section 3: 1965-1976 – residential childcare in transition

However, despite outlining these deficiencies and recognising that health authorities did not collect statistics on the after-care of boarded-out children, Murray nonetheless noted: While the occasional failure in boarding-out is well publicised – usually by interested parties – the outstanding success of the scheme as a whole is rarely alluded to. Former boarded-out children are represented in all walks of life. They are to be found in farming and business, as members of Religious Orders of Brothers, among nuns, teachers, civil servants, and nurses, in the army and naval service, in the hotel trade and in all skilled occupations. At the moment a number of boarded-out children are attending Irish Universities, and at least four are studying for the priesthood. Foster parents have reason to be proud of the work they have accomplished down the years, frequently without significant assistance from the local authority.

Miss Clandillon was equally positive abut the after-care employment of boarded-out children in her area, highlighting that ‘among the girls at least ten became nuns, one of whom is now on the missions in Zambia and three are teaching in England.’ Like Miss Murray, Clandillon was positive about the use of boarding-out and suggested that breakdowns in placement were comparatively rare. She observed: the vast majority are illegitimate children who are born in mother-and-baby Homes and who are boarded-out at an early age with a view to being reared as members of the fostering family and of residing permanently with the foster parents. Removals are comparatively rare, the chief reasons being the death of a foster mother in the case of a young child.

However, she did note: the need for close liaison between Children’s Officers and the mother-and-baby homes....the mother’s background must be studied and also that of the putative father, although the latter is often difficult because of the inaccuracy or lack of information available. Time must be allowed to ‘match’ a child to a family – placing any child in any home is worse than useless and may lead to very poor results in which the child is always the sufferer.

Commenting on the issue of standards in foster homes, Murray claimed that: It is true that of recent years foster homes of an acceptable standard are in somewhat short supply but they are not as scarce as we are led to believe. The bias at local level against boarding-out may result in a prospective home being turned down for frivolous reasons, or a prospective foster parent being disqualified for not measuring up to the bizarre or unrealistic standard set by some local official.

Miss Clandillon argued that one of reasons for the difficulties observed in recruiting foster parents was: The maintenance allowances paid to foster parents by health authorities vary enormously throughout the country. At present the highest rates are paid by Donegal: £104 per year, and lowest by Roscommon: £36 per year for the older children...A review of the reasons for the very great variations between health authority rates should be undertaken, the old argument usually given in defence of low rates was that the health authority did not wish to attract the wrong type of foster parent. This danger could be overcome only if each health authority has trained social workers who can evaluate the attitudes of prospective foster parents and their reasons for wanting to rear a child. It is time that foster parents were considered more as members of a team working for the deprived child in a semi-professional capacity and that the allowance reflected this recognition of their very responsible role. The great gap between the £214 per annum paid for children removed to schools and present rates paid to foster parents should be closed.

In relation to the increase in the number of children in approved schools and institutions, Murray argued that local authorities favoured this method of dealing with deprived children because: the children are not subject to inspection either at local or Departmental level, no reports on their progress are called for, and no records or case histories have to be compiled in relation to them; frequently not even a register is kept despite continuous pressure by inspectors. Once admitted to a school, therefore, the Health Authority has no further trouble with a child apart from an occasional letter from the Department inquiring why he has not been boarded-out. The easy answer to this is that a suitable foster home is not available and there the matter rests.

Murray elaborated on this issue noting: Article 4 of the Boarding-Out of Children Regulations, 1954 lays down that a health authority shall not send a child to a school approved by the Minister unless such children cannot be suitably or adequately assisted in being boarded out. Health authorities were reminded of this in paragraph 2 of circular 5/64 and again in paragraph 5 of circular 23/70. It is, nonetheless, admitted that there are many children that health authorities cannot place in foster homes or for adoption, e.g. lack of parent’s consent, or some physical or mental deficiency. As you know, in spite of constant reminders to health authorities and representations by this Department’s Inspectors in respect of individual children, the number of children maintained by health authorities in institutions continues to grow. In 1968 and 1969 they were 648 and 715 respectively. Careful examination of the records for 1967 showed that the vast majority of these cases were children of broken homes or of parents suffering from mental or physical disabilities who refused consent to boarding out. Apart from the Industrial Schools (to which children are committed for minor offences as well as because they are in need of care and maintenance and of the use of which for Health Act children, the Department’s Inspectors have never been in favour) there are only nine institutions approved by the Minister for Health for the purposes of section 55. Three of these are for Protestant children only; one for children under two years; two for boys and three for girls. One of these, the Convent of Mercy, Kells, has only 6 Health Act children, placed there by counties Meath and Westmeath; the Grange Convent until this year accepted girls over 11 years and has room for 25. This year they have added a new building designed to accommodate only 12 children from infancy which will be run on group home lines.

For Clandillon, one of the reasons for the increase in the number of children admitted to industrial schools and other institutions was the: result of a poor staffing situation in particular counties. Usually where the County Medical Officer and a number of Public Health Nurses are charged with the care of deprived children and office staff are also involved in the maintenance of registers and casepapers there is little or no liaison with the mother-and-baby homes. Moreover, where a number of different people are involved in this work as a part of their main duties in another field, the results are usually poor and the service deteriorates because of the fragmentation of the staffing situation – what is everyone’s business becomes nobody’s business, e.g. Laois, Offaly and recently Kildare and Carlow.151

In contrast, counties that employed a children’s officer maintained contact with the mother and baby homes and as a consequence: The mothers maintained in the homes thus have an opportunity to discuss with the Children’s officer the alternatives open to them in making arrangements for their baby’s future. If the mothers wish to have their babies adopted they may be placed in homes in their county of origin (if the mothers do not object) or outside with the co-operation of the Children’s Officer for the outside area, or again, the mothers may decide they would prefer the adoption to be arranged directly by the Sisters in the Home. If a mother opts for boarding-out the Children’s Officer can arrange this in her own county. If, on the other hand, a mother wishes her child to be reared in an institution, possibly in the hope of visiting the child from time to time, the decision must be respected, though the disadvantages of such an upbringing will naturally be pointed out to the mother. I have pointed out in my reports the necessity for close liaison between the Children’s Officers and the mother-and-baby homes and the dangers for the future welfare of the children where it is lacking. In one county, Kilkenny, a few years ago I found there were eleven cases of mothers leaving the Homes with their infants, ostensibly to return to their own parents, and in none of these instances had any inquiries been made as to the final destination of these infants. Such babies may not be brought home at all but may be committed quite unnecessarily to industrial schools or placed at nurse in most unsuitable and unregistered foster homes. The seriousness of this situation is quite evident. Obviously if the case history shows that the girl’s parents were aware of her confinement no harm can be done by inquiring whether she and her child did, in fact, return home. If the parents were not aware of the case, inquiry is more difficult but can still be made if sufficient tact is used. This must be done in a number of cases where a mother’s whereabouts are unknown and her consent to adoption or boarding-out is required.

In terms of the organisation of child welfare services, Clandillon argued that: the work for deprived children should be removed from the public health offices (County Medical officers and Public Health Nurses) where this arrangement exists in my area, e.g. Laois/ Offaly where, as I have pointed out earlier, hardly any children are boarded-out yet over 140 are in schools; Wicklow, where the C.M.C. was brought into the work very recently; Carlow / Kildare where, with the resignation of the Children’s Officer the work deteriorated rapidly in a little over a year; Waterford, Kilkenny, Clare.

Children’s officers should in her view be ‘professionally qualified social workers i.e. those with post-graduate qualifications, should be appointed to children’s officer posts, with a view to the eventual setting up of a social work department in each health authority area’. If this was to happen, such Departments, she argued: should cater for a much wider section of the community than children in need of social work help. They should include families at risk of breakdown for various reasons, one parent families and unmarried mothers, Child Guidance services, social care of the physically handicapped, mentally ill and mentally subnormal and social services for the aged. They should also cater for those who are incapable of providing for themselves or their dependents. A ‘homemaker’ service is of vital importance and also the supervision of day nurseries which should be obliged to register with the social service department. Housing welfare services should also be included as many of the problems of family breakdown are associated with inadequate living accommodation. Adoption work should be transferred to the new Department and should be carried out only by staff having post-graduate training. It follows that social workers at present employed in various fields of social work would belong to the social services department: Children’s Officers, medical and psychiatric social workers, probation officers, housing welfare officers.

What was required, Murray argued, was: making children maintained in institutions under section 55 of the Health Act subject to inspection and reports both at local and departmental level, and by requiring health authorities to keep personal files and case histories of these children in the same manner as for boarded-out children. The Department’s inspectors would then be in a position to make recommendations regarding the suitability or eligibility of the children for fosterage. At present the inspectors have instructions not to visit children in approved schools and institutions; and it was only recently, and after years of pressure by the inspectors, that the Department agreed to instruct health authorities to submit half-yearly returns of such children.

Clandillon made similar observations when noting that: Although children are admitted to approved institutions under the Health Act and the Department and health authorities contribute to their maintenance there is no provision under the Act for their inspection by officers of the health authorities or of the Department.152 A Department circular issued to health authorities 2nd July 1954 (no. 37/54) drew attention to the lack of provision for inspection153: Unfortunately this was not followed up and at a later date it was decided in the Department that as the schools were under the Department of Education and inspected by one of their officers there was no need for inspection by the Department of Health. Thus it came about that nobody visited the Health Act children to ascertain the reason for their admission in the first place, their level of mental and physical development and their suitability or otherwise for adoption or boarding-out, unless a mother had indicated that she wished her child to be reared in an institution. These children might be described during these years as the ‘forgotten ones’.

Clandillon also highlighted that returns of such children were not requested until 1965 and these returns ‘revealed that a number of children had been admitted to Industrial Schools and other institutions such as St Clare’s Stamullen, directly from a mother and baby home without notice being given to the Department. Most of these children were moved on to senior Industrial Schools. By then, little or no information was available as to their backgrounds.’ Clandillon went on to stress the need for a system of inspection in the homes in order to ascertain the reason for admission if not already clear, to follow up mothers to obtain their consent to the boarding-out or adoption of suitable children, to arrange for mental assessment in some cases and follow up for admission to Special Schools where recommended, and to check that physical defects are being treated, including those requiring surgery. The longer children live in institutions the less chance they have of integration into families and the dimmer become their hopes of adoption.

More generally, Murray signalled that a new system of child welfare was required and a broad-based commission of inquiry as suggested by O’Rourke were required and that all services for deprived children should be the responsibility of a single Department. The system of institutional care was particularly in need of reform as Murray commented: At present children coming before a juvenile court as a result of poverty, neglect, or minor delinquency may be committed either to an Industrial School or to the care of a ‘fit person’; but a ‘fit person’ within the meaning of the Children Act, 1908, does not include local authority. A local authority however may apply to the court to have a case dismissed and guarantee to take the child into care, but given the present climate of opinion at local level it is not surprising that apart from Dublin this solution is rarely availed of.