100 entries for Sr Callida

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.

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.

Following her removal in the early 1990s, Sr Callida was told to stay away from the group home and children, in order to avoid confusion for the children. The Congregation had great difficulty in getting Sr Callida to comply with its wishes. Initially, she continued to come to work every day, and later she tended to stay around the grounds of Cappoquin, waiting for the children on their way to and from school. Sr Callida remained defiant, and it took almost a year to resolve these problems.

The Congregation submits that discreet steps were taken in response to concerns expressed by members of the Community and by people outside. One sister was asked to be a companion to Sr Callida in the hope that she would be a good influence because she did not drink. However, that did not happen. Instead, as the Congregation submission put it, the two nuns: developed a relationship with each other. This may have had an impact on [Sr Melita’s] capacity to observe [Sr Callida’s] behaviour in an objective manner. It was one of several unusual aspects to the Cappoquin story involving [Sr Callida] as to the manner in which (informal) human arrangements for monitoring her ran into the sand. In the event, [Sr Melita] did not transmit any concerns about [Sr Callida] to anyone in leadership. The submission refers to another nun, Sr Serena, who was ‘specifically asked to report to the diocesan leadership about whether or not there was any substance to the rumours about ‘Sr Callida’s drinking’. The Diocesan Leader was reassured that there was not but the submission admits that the system for monitoring Sr Callida failed ‘for unusual and unexpected reasons.’ This unusual matter was the development of a relationship between [Sr Callida] and [Sr Serena], which compromised [Sr Serena] and prevented the reporting system devised by [Sr Viola] from working effectively. The result was that no information of a drink problem or of any other problems reached the ears of the leadership from internal congregation sources.

There was a conflict of evidence between Sr Viola, the senior diocesan nun, and Sr Serena, the local head, as to the latter’s role in monitoring Sr Lucilla. Sr Serena testified that the only brief she had was to befriend Sr Callida and encourage her to become closer to the Community. She denied that she was ever asked to report specifically to the Diocesan Leadership about whether or not there was any substance to the rumours about the drinking. The Congregation has submitted that there was a system for monitoring Sr Callida but, for unusual and unexpected reasons, the system failed.

The Superior General of the Sisters of Mercy, kept a detailed diary of the events that unfolded over this period and recorded allegations, complaints and concerns about Sr Callida.

In the early 1990s, Sr Callida told the Superior General that she had obtained a position with the Health Board in a project involving the care of a young man. The Superior General informed the Health Board of her concern about Sr Callida’s suitability for the post because of the complaints that had come to her notice, including information from Mr Lloyd. In the course of the resulting Health Board investigation, it emerged that one of the Board’s own senior social workers had given Sr Callida a glowing reference, even though he knew that she had been dismissed from her job in Cappoquin.

The Health Board did not look beyond the social worker’s reference and offered Sr Callida the job. This happened, despite the fact that the Chief Executive Officer of the Health Board had been informed in the early 1990s of Sr Callida’s dismissal, and she herself had been in communication with the Health Board disputing her removal. The social worker should not have given the reference and was seriously at fault in doing so. The Health Board should have been able, from its records, to notice the discrepancy between the favourable reference and the fact that the candidate had been dismissed from her previous post.

Sr Callida left the Congregation in the mid 1990s. Shortly after that, the Superior General was asked for a reference for the former Sr Callida, and she recorded her response in her diary: Phone call from XXX in Dublin looking for a reference for [Callida]. Asked the nature of work – laundry for hospitals. Told her she had been a member of the congregation. She asked what was my connection with her – diocesan superior. I said that I believed she was a hard worker when in hospital for the elderly. She said I seemed hesitant. Told her I did not really know [Callida].

In the late 1990s, the matron of another institution contacted the Sisters of Mercy to complain at the failure of the Congregation to inform her fully of Callida’s background. A senior member of the Congregation testified that the overall policy with regard to references was that of being honest and upright.

Sr Callida was an incompetent manager who exhibited a lack of basic management skills including rostering, proper record keeping, communicating with staff and children, consistency and avoiding favouritism. Each of these deficiencies would have represented a serious flaw in a Resident Manager but, taken together, they constituted a disastrous mixture. She consumed alcohol in front of the children to excess and she was drunk and incapable on occasion. Her behaviour was unpredictable and irrational; she bullied the staff and occasionally beat the children. Sr Callida exposed children to additional risk by going away unannounced leaving the children in the charge of junior staff who had no way of contacting her and also by permitting male outsiders to have access to the home and to stay overnight even when she was not there. It was wrong for the Resident Manager to have children sleeping in her bedroom and for her and the Sister with whom she was conducting a relationship to take children away for weekends to hotels to stay in ‘family rooms’. Congregation witnesses admitted to some knowledge of Sr Callida’s behaviour, but did not feel they could do anything about it, and the situation drifted on over 12 years until it developed into a crisis. There was no proper supervision of the Manager. The Community did not have the interests of the children as their priority. Any action taken by the Congregation focussed exclusively on the Resident Manager. The children were not considered. The Health Board neglected its supervisory function in respect of children for whom it was responsible. One of its senior Health Board officials permitted his friendship with the Resident Manager, to cloud his judgment, and he failed to recognise gross failures of management as a result. No proper reviews were carried out by the Board’s social workers. The children in Cappoquin were let down and endangered by each of the institutions and agencies in whose care they were placed, by the persons in positions of authority over them, and by persons in supervisory roles. They were fortunate to have care workers who were more dedicated to their tasks and more committed to the interest of the children than their superiors.

Physical punishment in Cappoquin continued after the Industrial School had been closed and the group homes were established. One care worker in Group Home A described seeing a child with marks on her legs as a result of a beating by Sr Callida.

Mr Lloyd, who succeeded Sr Callida as Resident Manager, reported that children had told him of beatings and punishments that were completely inappropriate and severe.