194 entries for Dr Anna McCabe

Dr McCabe conducted an Inspection of the School in June 1953 and, while she accepted that the School was well run, she noted that many improvements were required. She suggested a new washing machine and colander for the laundry.

In March 1954, the Visitor observed some improvements in the appearance of the premises. He criticised the boys’ kitchen with its out-dated cooking equipment and only one functioning boiler that provided for all of the needs of the School. The pantry was damp, covered in cobwebs, and unsuitable for the storage of food. He noted that the bread supplied by the in-house bakery was anything but appetising. In October of the same year, Dr McCabe reported that a newly appointed Resident Manager had plans for many improvements, including installation of a new kitchen unit, new sanitary annex with showers and a new heating system, as well as resurfacing the yard.

The 1943 Visitation Report was scathing. The Visitor criticised most aspects of the Institution and, in particular, the filth of the School. He concluded that, should a Department Inspector conduct an unannounced visit to the School, their report would surely be damning. Dr McCabe did inspect the School three months later but the Brothers had little to fear. Her report was not in any way as critical as the Visitation Report for the same year.

Dr McCabe made repeated criticisms of the boys’ clothing, particularly during the 1940s, to no avail. She had no suggestions or recommendations to make when the Superior explained that he had difficulty in obtaining supplies.

The Department of Education referred to this matter in its Submission to the Investigation Committee: While the punishment of boys in this instance appeared to contravene Department regulations, the Inspector is not recorded as having challenged the Resident Manager and it is possible that Dr. McCabe considered reformatories requiring a different approach in regard to discipline and the use of corporal punishment. There is no evidence that she offered advice on how the troublesome boys could have been treated differently; the 1946 circular stated that principals could draw on the advice of the Department’s Medical Inspector “regarding any children who are specially troublesome of difficult to control”.

This statement itself revealed the problem. The Inspectors were the only persons who could, through their regular visits, ensure that the rules for corporal punishment were being followed. If Dr McCabe believed that the rules and regulations relating to corporal punishment did not apply to reformatories, this was a fact that should have been recorded in the Department records. It is a measure of the inadequacy of the Department’s supervision that it did not know what standards its own Inspector applied. In this case, the Inspector reported back and received Departmental approval for her approach.

In November 1958, Dr McCabe wrote: This reformatory has greatly improved now that B/W37 have given the necessary facilities for dividing up the Play Yard into proper supervision ... The Rector ... has only recently returned from America where he made a Study of Juvenile Delinquency and was impressed by all he saw there and hopes to incorporate it in his work at Daingean. He is anxious to divide up the school into smaller units. He saw several improvements he could incorporate in operation of his own scheme in the dining room in self-service hatches. He is quite refreshed and anxious to make further improvements in Daingean. He considers that on the whole Daingean compares very favourably with such institutions in America and considers that the type of boy he deals with is not as vicious or depraved as the American youth - no drug addicts.

This letter appears to have called into question the suitability of the Resident Manager because, two months later, it was proposed to replace her with a Sister who was 66 years old. The Department wrote to Dr McCabe seeking her views on the suitability of this appointment. Dr McCabe replied that: I am not in favour of appointing as Resident Manager old or elderly women as they are too set in their ways and are very difficult to deal with regarding new changes and innovations.

This was followed by a letter to the Department from the Resident Manager, where she also took up the issue. The Department consulted Dr McCabe and suggested that perhaps a compromise could be reached, whereby children over six years of age could go barefoot. Dr McCabe was not willing to stand down on the issue. Her main reason for this was the danger of infections from cuts and bruises – in particular, tetanus.

The Department wrote to the Resident Manager on 14th March 1945, and refused to change its position on the matter. It suggested that sandals could be acquired from the boot suppliers. In an addendum to her General Inspection Report dated 14th March 1945, Dr McCabe made an additional note dated 11th April 1945, where she noted the difficulty the Resident Manager was experiencing in obtaining sandals. She conceded that, if they could not be procured, she would make an exception to the rule for the summer months only. Despite obtaining a number of samples, and several months of correspondence, it appears that no suitable sandals could be found, and the rule was relaxed for the summer of 1945.

From 1945 until 1964, Dr McCabe visited St Patrick’s annually and was generally pleased with how the School was run and the condition of the buildings. She repeatedly stated that the children were very well cared for and happy. Improvements to the buildings were being made constantly, and the accommodation and equipment were very good. In the late 1950s, the group family system was introduced and the children were divided into three groups. Dr McCabe described the new group system as very satisfactory.

For some of her inspections, Dr McCabe did not generate a separate report but simply made an addendum to the previous Inspection Report, saying that the School was running well. She appeared to visit the School very regularly. A single report covered the period from March 1961 to June 1963, and against each of four entries is stated, ‘Very well run school. Children very well cared’.

A review of the Medical Inspection files for the relevant period shows that Dr McCabe was satisfied with the health of the children and the attention being paid by the Sisters to record keeping. Furthermore, in one instance, the Sisters paid for private treatment of over 40 children.

The nuns investigated the sexual behaviour among the girls and identified those involved, but did not take the next step of asking why this behaviour had happened. They blamed the children for immorality but did not follow up the inquiry as Dr McCabe did. This abuser had been employed in St Joseph’s for 30 years before his activities were revealed, but the 1954 episode was treated as a single episode, and the full extent of the sexual abuse of the children was not established and no attempt was made to do so. Notwithstanding the more progressive attitude the Sisters had towards childcare, they were still unable or unwilling to believe the child who complained about Mr Jacobs. Dr McCabe uncovered the serious sexual abuse going on in St Joseph’s by listening to the children. The attitude of the Sisters appeared to be to blame the children for having been abused by Jacobs, and they sought to have them transferred away from the Institution. No lessons were learned from this incident. The risk that unsupervised access posed to the children, particularly by male employees, was never acknowledged or addressed. No procedures were put in place and no warnings given to staff about listening to children who complained of sexual abuse. This was to have serious consequences less than 20 years later, when two dangerous sexual abusers were employed in the School.