230 entries for Transfers

When asked if he felt that he was in any way educationally handicapped, he replied ‘No’. He was asked if he felt he was inappropriately placed in Lota, and he replied: Maybe it was my own imagination but I felt that I was not mentally handicapped. That if I was given an opportunity, I could learn properly ... I was able to pick things up a lot quicker. When something was told to me I could understand it much easier than some people you know. I do not know why I could do it but that is the way it was with me.

There were 12 complainants in respect of Lota. Three of these complainants were heard by the Commission in 2002.

A high duty of care is owed to children who are less able to look after themselves, by reason of physical or mental incapacity. The children in Lota fell into this vulnerable category.

Children with learning disabilities rely heavily on adults to help them cope with everyday life. Whether raised at home or in institutions, they are more vulnerable because they are less exposed to the normal risks of life, and their lack of experience can leave them unable to assess risks in general.

In addition, children wiith learning disabilities may be less aware of social rules that govern everyday behaviour. They can be led into situations posing dangers that would have been avoided by children who had had the opportunity and ability to learn how to assess risks realistically. Learning disabled children, particularly those raised in institutions, often fail to see any risk at all. They may be unaware of what is socially and morally unacceptable, and as a result they are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.

If children with a learning disability are harmed or abused, their disability and inexperience leaves them even more uncertain than other children as to what to do about it. If the person who is there to protect them is also the person perpetrating the abuse, then their confusion is complete.

Bearing these issues in mind, the Investigation Committee had to do more than assess whether abuse occurred in Lota. It had to assess whether the management structures and care arrangements were such that they could provide the additional level of care owed to the vulnerable population entrusted to the Brothers of Charity.

Two Government Departments, The Department of Health and the Department of Education, were responsible for supervising services in Lota. The Department of Education inspected the education provided in Lota. They officially recognised the National School in Lota in 1955.

The Department of Health also inspected the premises, but only in relation to direct funding of capital development projects. The Investigation Committee asked the Department of Health about their inspection regime for institutions for persons with intellectual disabilities between the period 1939 and 1990, and they replied: From enquiries made both within the Department and the H.S.E2 (S.H.B3. area as Lota is based there) this division is not aware of any inspections having being carried out by the Department or then Health Board staff on institutions for persons with intellectual difficulties between the period 1939 and 1990.

The Department was also asked specifically if it had carried out any inspections in Our Lady of Good Counsel, Lota during the period 1939 to 1990. The Department replied: From enquiries made both within the Department and the H.S.E (S.H.B. area) this division is not aware of any inspections having being carried out by Department in Our Lady of Good Counsel during this period.

The Department of Health stated that the ‘only inspections carried out and on behalf of The Department of Health and Children during the period 1939 to 1990 were in respect of children in Care in Foster Homes’.

Lota did not come within the scope of the Inspector for Reformatories and Industrial Schools either. Dr Anna McCabe, who inspected these schools, did not visit Lota, and no Department of Education inspection of the residential facilities took place either. The industrial schools were inspected and the Medical Inspector’s reports left contemporary evidence about diet, and living conditions. No such documentation exists for Lota.

Neither Government Department saw itself as responsible for overseeing the conditions and quality of care in the School. The witnesses who appeared before the Committee said very little about the diet and clothing of the residents, as their chief concern was to relate what had been done to them.

With no external supervision, the management of the Brothers of Charity alone assessed the quality of the care they provided and the suitability of the staff entrusted with the care of children with learning disability.

The Investigation Committee received from the Brothers of Charity a limited number of Visitation Reports. They were written by Brothers delegated by the Congregation to conduct Visitations of the School.