1,173 entries for Abuse Events

General conclusions 1. The Visitation Reports described Salthill in the early years as dirty, cold and unhealthy. The boys’ refectory was shabby, the buildings dilapidated, the dormitories unsuitable, the pantry damp and with cobwebs and the boys’ kitchen outdated. Improvements were made over the years but many of these problems persisted. Washing facilities were grossly inadequate for most of the time. The boys’ clothes were severely criticised. Their bedclothes were dirty and insufficient. 2. There was little recreation for the boys and an absence of enthusiasm or capacity on the part of the Brothers to arrange for pastimes or amusements for them. 3. Training was substandard and very restricted, and the workshops were unhealthy and actually dangerous for a time. 4. The education provided was substandard. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, management knew that there was a teacher in the School who could not write legibly on a blackboard and who was responsible for the whole primary school being retarded by a full year. Although this man was only identified in 1958 by a Visitor, he had been on the staff of the School for nearly 20 years at this time. In a vital area of care within the specialist remit of the Brothers, this gross inadequacy was permitted to continue. 5. Two Visitors in the late 1960s and early 1970s, identified the inadequacies of the care given to the children. They were able to understand the needs of children and the failure of this Institution to meet these needs. 6. When change came, it came slowly and laboriously, and an improvement in one area was often not accompanied by betterment in others. 7. It is not easy to understand how the Departmental Inspector could have been satisfied with conditions in the Institution when what was described by the Visitors was so clearly inadequate. 8. In regard to physical abuse, the documents contain a record of general complaints about violent behaviour by Brothers as well as cases that occurred in Salthill. One Brother who was found to have engaged in harsh and cruel treatment of boys in Letterfrack was again the subject of complaints of severity towards children in Salthill. Another Brother was found to be repeatedly guilty of excessive harshness in schools to which he was assigned after his service in Salthill. A further Brother was warned by the Superior General about his conduct towards boys and it was said of yet another that he should not be put in charge of boys. 9. Concerns were raised about three Brothers in regard to sexual abuse while they were in Salthill. In none of the cases was the abuse addressed other than as a practical problem for the Congregation. In the case of one Brother, there is documentary evidence of serious abuse of young boys continuing for over 20 years after his transfer from Salthill.

Parents of a boy wrote to Br Ames, alleging that Mr Ashe had struck their son and had used foul language. Six months after this complaint, a boy complained that Mr Ashe had struck him on the nose causing it to bleed; and, one month after that, four boys wrote letters to the Principal complaining that Mr Ashe ‘thumped’ them. Furthermore, he had threatened and tried to intimidate the school Principal.

Two members of the Board of Management had a formal meeting with Mr Ashe, at which the Chairman outlined a series of complaints and invited the teacher to respond. The first item was an allegation that he had struck a pupil in the face and made his nose bleed. Mr Ashe denied the allegation, claiming that, while he had snatched a pen from the boy’s mouth, he had not hit him and that the boy’s nose bled for some other reason. He also denied showing disrespect to the Principal, and rejected a charge of setting excessive homework and hitting boys for failure at lessons.

The final allegation put to Mr Ashe at the meeting was that he threatened and tried to intimidate the Principal, Br Ames, by words and gestures. In reply, he described an angry meeting when he accused the Principal of trying to set him up and of being hypocritical. The minutes of the meeting include the following comments that Mr Ashe made to Br Ames: Are you up to your old tricks again or what? You have some neck to try to set anybody up with all the beatings and spankings and all the other stuff you have been up to lately. The Guards never come down to me over hammering. Remember, in case you forget it, that it was to you, yes you, the Guards came, after the daylights being kicked out of a pupil.

The unfortunate boy who was treated in this fashion by the staff fared no better with his fellow pupils. The boy’s father complained again to Br Ames, some two years later, that his son was being bullied by other boys in the School because of his religion, displaying acceptance of a prejudice that should have been wholly unacceptable to the management of the School: As [the boy] has been the only boarder of his religion; it is understandable that certain pupils would give him a hard time. He has had his hair torn out by the root, his clothes taken from his locker and his head battered against a wall necessitating us taking him to [hospital] for a brain scan to ascertain any permanent damage to his skull.

In the mid-1990s, a pupil made a number of allegations of physical abuse against his Assistant House Parent, Mr O’Sullivan, who had worked in the School for many years. The allegations, which were made to an Eastern Health Board social worker, were that Mr O’Sullivan hit him with a fish slice, caught him under the chin and attempted to lift him off the ground, had kicked him and twisted his arm. He also alleged that Mr O’Sullivan was rough with the boys, would twist their arms and was cruel to the younger boys and had thrown a cup at a boy. The boy who made the complaints had been resident in the School for a period of three years but, at the time of making the allegations, was a day pupil.

A meeting was held in which the findings of the internal investigation were revealed to Mr O’Sullivan. The findings were: (1) Mr O’Sullivan was rough and cruel with the smaller boys; (2) he shouted at them and twisted their arms; (3) several boys had witnessed him hitting the boy with a fish slice; (4) he had a habit of grabbing children under the chin and lifting them up; and (5) he had a habit of throwing cups at children expecting them to catch them during wash up. In addition, Management was of the view that: Generally there were certain underlying themes coming forward some in relation to roughness with smaller boys and a kind of mocking, teasing attitude which in some cases was seen as cruel.

A few years later, a parent wrote a letter of complaint to the Principal, Br Ames, alleging that Br Seaton12 had punched his son in the stomach and slapped him around the face when he was wearing his hearing aids. Br Ames wrote a very unsympathetic letter in response, stating that the boy was ‘by no means an easy boy to manage’ and, as stated above, admitted that he had found it necessary to give him a good ‘clip’ and made no apology for it. Br Ames also alleged that the boy had been sedated in his former school, which was the reason he had had no problems there, a fact denied by the boy’s father who had spoken with staff at that school. It would appear that no action was taken against Br Seaton on foot of these allegations.

Br Seymour,13 who taught in the School from the late 1950s to the mid-1970s, was the subject of an allegation of physical abuse when he was teaching in another school in the late 1980s. A pupil there alleged that Br Seymour had hit him on the back of the head, which caused his head to shoot forward and his mouth to hit the desk, thus damaging his teeth. Legal proceedings were instituted and the matter was settled without admission of liability. Br Seymour was transferred to a school in Galway following this allegation.

There was a delay in actually commencing the screening process of past and present pupils at St Joseph’s, which was to be conducted by the social workers of the Eastern Health Board together with a member of staff at Cabra. The St Clare’s team had stressed the need to begin the screening process quickly. However, the minutes of a case conference held following the dismissal of Mr Moore noted that the screening process had not begun and parents had not even been informed at that stage, some five months after the initial complaint of sexual abuse had been made. The screening process began shortly after this case conference. Initially, 17 boys were screened. However, further screenings took place and were expanded to include past and present pupils of the School, which resulted in 70 boys being screened.

The Provincial interviewed the two staff members and Br Ames concerning the allegations. The care worker, Mr Kennedy, stated that he regularly saw Br Boucher go into the boy’s room at night, and vice versa, when the Brother would give the boy biscuits and sweets. The teacher, Ms O’Connor,23 reported that the pupil had told her in class that this Brother had power over him and ‘made him do things of a sexual nature which he did not want to do’.

In a separate incident, a staff member, Mr Williams,35 saw an older boy holding the hand of a younger boy and bringing him into a dark room. He followed them and found the two boys in a corner of the room with the lights off. When questioned by school management, it transpired that the older boy had attempted to sexually assault the other boy. He had asked him to pull down his trousers and, when the boy refused, he then ‘rubbed his penis up and down his backside’ while both were fully clothed.

In the late 1980s, an Assistant House Parent, Mr Smith,37 found that a boy was upset and ‘had problems’, and had written down details of many instances of sexual abuse perpetrated on him by boys in his class over a period of seven years, including fondling, masturbation, anal penetration and oral sex. Mr Smith informed the Principal, Br Grissel, of the allegations, and the Principal with another teacher spoke to the boy and decided to allow him home early due to his agitated state.

A letter dated one year later reveals the dissatisfaction felt by the father of the boy who was the victim of Fergal’s predatory behaviour. He complained that he was given inconsistent information whether such incidents had happened. In relation to the particular episode involving his son, the father stated that he and his wife: would in the ordinary way be upset and sad that such a thing should happen, but if it were an isolated incident which was then handled appropriately, we would accept that it is impossible to guard completely against such a thing. In this case, however, it appears on the information available at present to have been part of a series of events which should have put you on guard to take appropriate precautions ...

The boy’s father protested that the Principal of the School had neglected the matter totally and for so long, and that his concern at that stage one year on ‘appeared to be to minimise the significance of what happened and the shortcomings’ which he had described. He found Br Grissel’s suggestion that what the boy was doing with his son might be described as ‘horseplay’ to be offensive and ridiculous, and thought that attempted rape would be more appropriate. The writer went on to claim that the way this and other similar events had been handled was unfair to the boys engaged in predatory behaviour as well as to their victims.