1,173 entries for Abuse Events

Another complainant present in the late 1950s remembered one particular Brother who often deferred punishment: Br Noreis was his own judge, jury and executioner. His favourite thing would be “I will see you later”. Sometimes you were lucky and he meant shortly later and it was over and done with, sometimes you were unlucky and it could be a week later and during that week you walked around terrified you never knew when that – well, for want of a better word, when the hand was going to come down and grab you, then you were brought into the library ... we were in a home where the children there were put in for various reasons, criminal or because they had no one to look after then. We got sent there to be educated and looked after, fed nourished, I won’t say loved, but looked after; we got none of that.

Violence was a feature of life and was reflected in bullying. This ranged from schoolyard bullying to bullying at meal times and, at the extreme end of the spectrum, peer sexual abuse. One resident from the late 1960s described the bullying: ... you had to fight for survival because there was a lot of bullying and a lot of stuff going on. You had to be on your guard all the time because there was bigger kids and stronger kids, different kids and different types. Rough kids and bad kids; there was all different types. Yes, it was dog eat dog. It was survival, you had to do everything to survive, you know. You had to fight, scratch, you had to do everything for survival. There was no love or affection or caring from anyone, you know. And there was no one to talk to, you just had to form your own way of survival.

Another resident from the early 1960s told the Investigation Committee: when I got down to Letterfrack, needless to say, I was very very scared. Now I am not going to ... I am no angel, never have been, I was a scamp, if you like on the streets at the time, so my father always called it to me anyway, black sheep of the family, but I know in my heart and soul this is not about what I had done. It was the way I was treated in there and I was treated awful, I was starved, I was in rags. I felt I was bullied from the moment I went down until a couple of months, or a couple of weeks before I went out.

As already stated, a number of Brothers were unhappy and isolated in Letterfrack. The burden of work fell on the shoulders of a few, and this had its own implications for how they treated the children. Some former residents described how some members of staff were kind to them at times but the mood could change in an instant. One former resident described this as follows: When they took the humour, they would show you, what do you call it, an act of kindness and you got kind of swallowed by this in some ways and you thought – you could get the off day like Telfour or Curtis would show you some act of kindness and next of all they just turn. There was a lot of Jeckyl and Hyde with them.

Another former resident made a similar point: Some of them they would like you one minute and you would be getting on, and the next minute, they would just bring you down. You put a curtain up in front of them.

Another former resident told a similar story. He described how Br Curtis was nice to him and how he welcomed the attention. However, Br Curtis went on to sexually abuse him: But Br Curtis, on many occasions, I didn’t know at the beginning – and I welcomed a little bit of attention, because as I sort of outlined, you know, I had been taken away from home, and Br Curtis, I didn’t realise that it was wrong, what he was doing.

General conclusions Physical abuse 1. There was a climate of fear in Letterfrack. Corporal punishment was severe, excessive and pervasive. Violence was used to express power and status and was practically a means of communication between Brothers and boys and among the boys themselves. Punishment was inescapable and frequently capricious, unfair and inconsistent. Rules on corporal punishment were disregarded at all levels. 2. The Congregation did not carry out proper investigations of cases of physical abuse. It did not impose sanctions on Brothers who were guilty of brutal assaults. 3. Protection of the boys was not a priority for the Congregation in dealing with excessive and unlawful punishment, and the Department of Education abrogated responsibility by leaving supervision and control of this area entirely to local management. Sexual abuse 4. A timeline of documented and admitted cases of sexual abuse shows that for approximately two-thirds of the period 1936-1974 there was at least one Brother in Letterfrack who sexually abused boys at some time and for almost one-third of the period there were at least two such Brothers there. One Brother worked for 14 years before being detected. Another who served for a separate period of similar length went undetected for many years after the school closed. It is impossible to calculate the true extent of sexual abuse in the institution but it is clear that more abuse happened than is recorded. 5. The Congregation did not properly investigate allegations of sexual abuse. Brothers who sexually abused boys and who were known to be a continuing danger were still permitted to work with children. 6. The manner in which Brothers who sexually abused were dealt with is indicative of a policy of protecting them, the Community and the Congregation, from the effects of disclosure of abuse. The needs of the victims were not considered. Emotional/Neglect 7. The boys were unprotected in a hostile environment isolated from their families. 8. Remoteness was an acknowledged affliction that caused or exacerbated almost every difficulty that Letterfrack encountered from its inception. 9. Children left Letterfrack with little education and no adequate training. 10. Boys in Letterfrack needed extra tuition to bring them up to standard, but instead they got poor teachers and bad conditions. 11. The 1954 decision to restrict intake to children convicted of offences, taken in the face of opposition by both the Department of Education and District Justice McCarthy, was detrimental to the welfare of the boys in Letterfrack and was implemented in a way that was wholly inconsistent with the thinking behind it.

The following Visitation Report again singled out Br Eriq for criticism of his excessive use of punishment: [He] gives way rather often to outbursts of ill temper and inflicts immoderate corporal on the dull children in his class. I had abundant evidence that the charge against Br Eriq is true. The Superior makes a strong appeal to have [him] changed at some future date and to get an additional Brother for the staff.

One complainant, appearing before the Investigation Committee, said of this man: Yeah, he would hit you, he would hit you in a temper. He wasn’t a cold, sadistic sort of man. He would hit you in a temper. He would lash out at you in a temper. But if you met him the next day he would talk to you quite okay like. What you done with Br Eriq is the best thing, try and keep out of his way in case he was in a bad mood ... He was just a hot tempered man from what I could see of him.

This advice, however, had been overtaken by events, as the Superior had written to the Provincial about Br Marceau the previous month and, in this letter, more specific complaints were made. The letter referred to two complaints by parents about excessive corporal punishment of their children, and went on to express the belief that the Brother would not change, and therefore should not be in charge of boys at all. The details contained in the letter were so explicit and disturbing that it merits being quoted in full: My v dear Br. Provincial I regret to have to report to you a case of excessive corporal punishment by Br Marceau. The mother of one of his pupils, aged 8 years came to me to-day and showed me the back of the child’s hand with lumps on it caused by a stick. She had already brought him to the Doctor for a certificate. The Doctor, she said, told her it was not the first case he had come across of excessive punishment administered by this Brother. The mother also told me she was awaiting the return of her husband from Dublin, before taking action, I presume - legal action. Last year, I had the humiliating experience of seeing the father of another boy, whom Br Marceau marked, take down his son’s pants in our parlour and show me the weals on the buttocks and legs. I did not report to you at that time as the father said he would let the matter end there and through charity, I gave Br Marceau a severe lecture and he promised me it wouldn’t happen again. On the present occasion, to-day, I have again spoken in no uncertain manner to the Brother. He told me he was sorry and that it wouldn’t happen again! I fear this Brother won’t be taught a lesson until he finds himself in Court. I don’t think he is fit to be in charge of boys at all, much less boys of five to nine years of age. I shall be grateful if you will advise me on this matter.

The evidence against Br Marceau was mounting. Not just parents but the local doctor had also come across cases of severe beatings by him. The Provincial’s response was immediate. In a letter dated the next day, he wrote: My very dear Br. Superior, I very much regret the trouble that you are having over Br Marceau. There is little excuse for treating children as he has done. I sincerely hope that the parents will not bring on a court case. You must prevent that at all costs. We shall have to deal with this case as it deserves. This is the third such case that we had to deal with in recent times, and any one of them could have done very considerable harm to the Congregation if publicised. Please send Br Marceau here on Friday evening and if in the meantime anything further transpires you can let us know.

The Superior arranged for Br Marceau to report to the Provincial, but also sent the Provincial a letter the following day to warn him that Br Marceau would try to minimise the whole thing. It pointed out that Br Marceau had deliberately cut his cane in half to make it appear it was a light cane, and again reiterated that the Brother ignored instructions and remained a danger to boys. Again, the detailed nature of the criticism warrants the letter being quoted extensively: My very dear Br Provincial, I thank you for your letter received to-day. I shall send Br Marceau on the train, leaving here at 3pm. He should be in Dublin at 6.30 pm. I have not heard anything further from ... the mother of the boy in question. She told me that her husband ... was in Dublin and would not be back until Friday. Meanwhile the boy has been kept from School. I should like to point out that Br Marceau will probably try to minimise the whole thing, with you. He has always adopted this attitude with me. “I only gave him a tip”. I consequently insisted on his coming to the parlour on each occasion and seeing the results of the “tip”. If I didn’t, he would say I exaggerated the whole thing. I assure you, I saw the weals on the body of the Solicitor’s son and now on the hand of [this boy] I demanded the stick from Br Marceau and when I received it, it had been cut in two. I got half a stick. I may be wrong in thinking he deliberately cut it to make it appear it was a light cane. Finally, Br Marceau has not much sense or judgment and is capable of doing the most foolish things. As I stated in my last letter, he is a danger to boys. He will tell you he is sorry as he told me, but it happens “again”. Br Cheyne (ex novice master) told me of another case of a boy here in [name of town] who was severely punished by Br Marceau. He asked me not to say anything to Br Marceau about it but warned me to be careful in watching Br Marceau in this respect. I have forbidden Br Marceau on more than one occasion, to use a stick or leather. He ignores my directions completely.

The Christian Brothers no longer have a copy of the Canonical Warning issued to this Brother, but its ineffectiveness soon became apparent. Less than nine months after the Canonical Warning, the Superior had to report further transgression. He wrote to the Brother Consultor: My v dear Brother Consultor, Br Marceau is again in trouble. Last night, a [parent] called on me. He charged Br Marceau with pulling hair out of his son’s head. I brought Br Marceau to see the son and hear the charge. Br Marceau denied it and [the parent] called him a “liar”, and said he believes his son, who on being questioned would not admit the Brother did it until he was assured there would be no fear of consequences on telling the truth! [The parent] said on leaving, he would take his own action next time it happened – he would not go to the Superior or [text illegible] into Br Marceau’s room and deal with him, not with “Kid gloves” either. I intended investigating this matter to-day (Sat), but had not time, as Monsignor O’Byrne called in. I am inclined to believe [the parent]. I may be wrong, of course. Anyway Br Marceau told me to-day the two ... boys in his class should be put out until such time as their father apologises! I had reason a month or so ago to talk to Br Marceau on another matter and he accused me rather passionately of exaggerating things last year to you and the Br Provincial. In all, he is the “innocent” one, and we are all against him. He believes this and though he has zeal and works hard, he has no common sense. I mentioned some time ago when writing you, that I have still to face angry parents and submit to insults. I am not going to interview another parent who comes to complain about Br Marceau. I am sick and tired of it all. Please do not write to him on the matter. He will deny everything. And I shall appear a “greater” enemy in his eyes.

A later Visitation Report, however, expressed concern about him. It mentioned he was not on the ‘official staff’: [Br Marceau] is a problem and a constant source of worry and anxiety to the Superior. He has a persecution complex, among others, and is unpredictable. At the moment his chief preoccupation is trying to recover a set of tools which he believes the Superior has taken and his enquiries have extended to the men in the Shops. He has several tea chests and cases of nondescript “property” stored away under lock and key and is constantly adding to his store. The Superior has a big job in keeping him under surveillance ... Br Marceau has a class of eleven boys but his stock of visual aids would supply several classes. I counted seventeen blackboards in his classroom. Most of his charts deal with Irish – lists of verbs, nouns, etc. – and he maintains that much time is saved. The children are tense and answer mechanically and are “encouraged” to use the time before class and other recess periods for learning off these lists and other lessons. He has beaten one of these boys severely, with the usual “black eye” result and boxed the ears of the youngest boy in the place, who attends the Convent School, but, as always, he denies everything when challenged and convinces himself that he is telling the truth. He made a strong appeal to the Visitor to have the Canonical Warning he received for such an offence annulled and he has consulted priests about this. It is preying on his mind.

Subsequently, however, the problem recurred. The next Visitor found him ‘most devoted’ but he still criticised his behaviour and his potential for being a ‘danger’. He wrote: [He] had a few breaks re punishment, not TOO serious, but he is always a potential danger, and difficult to convince. I have warned of this danger and told him that there is to be no punishment except in the approved method and that as little as possible. He is inclined to lose control of himself and then anything could happen.