4,228 entries for Historical Context

Witnesses with intellectual disabilities described being bullied and threatened by staff and co-residents not to tell others they were being abused. They also reported being punished and further abused when they disclosed their abuse to others. The impact of this experience was made evident to the Committee by a number of witnesses who sought reassurance from accompanying companions and from the Commissioners that they would not be punished or ‘get in trouble’ for attending the Commission.

Seven (7) witnesses reported that when they told staff they were being abused they were not believed and the staff did nothing to address the reported complaint. Witnesses commented on the fact that disclosure often resulted in being punished for ‘telling tales’. In other circumstances witnesses reported that while their disclosure was punished, the abuse subsequently stopped. I went back to the orphanage and told them that I was being abused, she... (person in charge)... told me “you are always causing trouble”, she wouldn’t listen to me. She told me I was lying. How can any child... (make up something like that )... she wouldn’t listen to me. I didn’t even know what sexual abuse was. I thought it was the right thing, he was giving me money. When I tried to explain to one of the nuns that he was touching me she said “there you are, lying again” and pushed me away.

The Committee heard evidence that in seven instances the offender was removed from the school following disclosure to either the witnesses’ parents or staff within the school. An additional three witnesses reported being separated from abusive co-residents that led to a cessation in the abuse for some time. Another witness reported that religious staff in charge of one school appeared to be aware of sexual abuse among residents and became more vigilant in their supervision of recreation time.

Two (2) other witnesses reported that their parents wrote letters of complaint to the person in charge who subsequently met them and minimised the seriousness of the disclosed abuse. ‘I told my parents, they believed me, as far as I know. My mother wrote to ...named lay teacher... but it made no difference.’ There was no positive outcome for these witnesses. Another witness’s father intervened and spoke to the person in charge, it was believed the reported abuser was reprimanded but not removed. Following parental intervention another witness reported being removed from the residential part of the service to continue attending as a day pupil.

A positive example of external intervention was provided by a witness who complained repeatedly to staff that he was being bullied by older co-residents and was punished in response. Despite his complaints being ignored by staff he persisted in complaining about being constantly picked on and taunted by a group of older boys whom he feared. The witness reported that one day this group of co-residents threatened his life in a public place. A passing member of the public saw what was happening and intervened ‘Actually a doctor rang the staff and they were told off for it. ... I think they were a bit afraid after that.’

Twenty six (26) witnesses reported having some positive memories of their time in the special needs schools and services. The kindness of religious and lay staff was often reported in relation to admission to the facilities and the assistance provided to witnesses when they were leaving. Fourteen (14) witnesses commented on the good experience of having kind teachers and 11 religious staff were named as particularly kind by a number of witnesses. Some of the nuns were very, very nice. I can’t take that away from them... I’d have to say they were fairly good to us....There was one nun, Sr ...Y..., she was a nice person, she took me and said “listen, you aren’t a bad person”. • The... (lay care worker)... was one of the nicest, kindest people ever in my life, he would give us chocolate to keep us quiet, rocked us to sleep. I don’t remember anything bad ever happening with him.

Three (3) other witnesses commented on the positive changes introduced by new staff, particularly those in authority. One of those witnesses reported that, following such a change, more thorough assessments took place, as a result of which the witness was transferred to another facility where his particular educational needs were addressed.

Ten (10) witnesses commented positively on the level of care provided to them and the general and academic education they received. They commented on the beneficial outcome to them of treatment and training provided by the special needs services. In a small number of instances witnesses reported that their families were unable to care adequately for them or that they were abused and neglected prior to their admission. The witnesses remarked that their placement in the special needs school or service had a protective component for which they were grateful.

This section of the Report presents the evidence provided to the Confidential Committee by witnesses in relation to their experiences of abuse in Children’s Homes in Ireland over a period of 73 years between 1919 and 1992. The majority of Children’s Homes, previously known as orphanages and approved schools, were managed by Catholic religious communities or Boards of Trustees affiliated to Protestant churches. In latter decades a number of Children’s Homes were managed and funded by State agencies. The Homes were generally privately managed and were, in earlier decades, not subject to the same statutory inspections as the Industrial Schools. Placement of a child in a Children’s Home could be made directly by their parent, or guardian, on a voluntary basis. Such placements occurred most frequently in the context of a family crisis and were paid for by private means. Other sources of funding included private endowments and charitable benevolent funds. A child could also be placed in a Children’s Home by order of the court under the Children Act, 1908 following an application by officers1 of the local health authority or the regional Health Board, and in particular circumstances by the Garda Síochana.2

Sixty one (61) witnesses, 38 male and 23 female, gave evidence to the Committee about their experiences of abuse in 19 Children’s Homes. Witnesses gave evidence in relation to 16 mixed gender Homes, and three Homes for boys. Nine (9) mixed gender Homes were the subject of reports by both male and female witnesses. Four (4) witnesses each made reports of abuse in relation to two Homes.

Witnesses who reported abuse in Children’s Homes gave evidence in relation to their experiences in residential care across all decades as follows: Thirty (30) witnesses were discharged prior to 1960. Sixteen (16) witnesses were discharged in the 1960s. Eleven (11) witnesses were discharged in the 1970s. Four (4) witnesses were discharged in the 1980s and 1990s.

Twelve (12) of the Children’s Homes were located in Irish cities and the other seven were located in provincial and rural areas.

In addition to the reports of abuse outlined in this chapter, seven witnesses also gave evidence of abuse in other out-of-home care placements. Those included Industrial Schools, foster care,3 hospitals, special needs services4, primary and second-level schools, and residential work and other settings, details of which are reported in the relevant sections of this Report.

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