BishopAccountability.org
 
  Ireland Must Learn from Child Abuse

By Geoffrey Shannon
Sunday Business Post
May 31, 2009

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS+FEATURES-qqqm=nav-qqqid=41969-qqqx=1.asp

The harrowing and gut wrenching stories of physical, emotional and sexual abuse of children detailed in the Report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse should not have surprised us.

After all, many children growing up in the 1960s and 1970s were told that, if they did not behave, they would be sent to Letterfrack or Artane.

Irish society knew - or at the very least, was aware - of the hell on Earth being inflicted on defenceless children in religious institutions. Yet, what was their crime? In the main, it was poverty. Tragic circumstances of birth resulted in many children from lower socio-economic backgrounds being received into care and being systematically abused and exploited to expand the coffers of the religious institutions.

The legacy of our shameful indifference is illustrated in this important report that indicates there were 800 known abusers in more than 200 institutions over a period of 35 years. We must learn from it.

The report stated that "the deferential and submissive attitude of the Department of Education towards the [religious] congregations compromised its ability to carry out its statutory duty of inspection and monitoring of the schools". Clearly, the state did not shout stop, but neither did anyone else. Sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children was systematic - in particular, sexual abuse of boys was "endemic" in religious-run institutions.

The scale of abuse of thousands of children in institutions run by religious congregations implicates all of Irish society. When the Kennedy Report was published in 1970, an awareness and concern was created for the first time as to what was hidden behind the euphemistic words "residential child care". A chilling feature of the accounts of children who were in care in Ireland prior to the report emerged. So did the unquestioned - and apparently unquestionable - moral authority of the care providers, and the reckless disregard for child welfare.

The last few decades have seen an upsurge in the reporting of cases involving victims of abuse in institutional settings. Many such incidents came to light during the 1990s, revealed by the Madonna House inquiry and RTE's documentary series States of Fear. The systematic physical and sexual abuse of children in care institutions became an area of national concern.

The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was established in 1999 to provide a forum for victims to seek redress against those who perpetrated the abuse. The commission was established on a statutory basis under the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act, 2000 and was given the power to compensate victims of child abuse in residential institutions without recourse to the courts.

While the commission was established as an alternative to litigation, this did not preclude victims from achieving redress through the court civil litigation process. The recent unsuccessful test case taken by Louise O'Keeffe - arising out of sexual assaults against her by the principal of her school when she was eight - highlights the vulnerabilities in pursuing this avenue of litigation.

Now the commission has reported, and we must study its recommendations carefully and see what we can learn from this tragedy. The Ryan report makes 21 recommendations, of which 15 concern child protection.

Recommendation 21 provides that guidelines relating to child abuse and neglect introduced in Ireland in 1999, entitled Children First:

National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children, be uniformly and consistently implemented throughout the state in dealing with allegations of abuse.

The aim of the guidelines is to improve the identification and management of child abuse. While the introduction of the guidelines is very positive, their implementation has been described as "sporadic and ad hoc". Monitoring of the implementation of the guidelines highlights the fact that progress has been slow in some vital areas. The Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs launched a national review of compliance with the Children First guidelines last July. The report concluded that problems lie in the implementation of the guidelines at local level as they were not being implemented in a uniform manner.

A weakness with the Children First Guidelines, therefore, is the assumption that the existence of procedures or policies ensures that they will be implemented. That has not been the case. The nature and extent of the protection afforded to a child clearly varies according to the Health Service Executive (HSE) area in which he or she resides.

This issue was brought into sharp relief following the publication of the Brosnan report investigating the death of the Dunne family in Monageer in Wexford in tragic circumstances. At the launch of that report, Minister for Children Barry Andrews committed to having a national figure with responsibility for child protection. I welcome this. It will avoid the "geographical injustice" that exists at present by ensuring that, regardless of where a child lives, the child's right to protection will be equally respected.

Recommendation 12 provides that independent inspections of all services for children are essential. The Irish Social Services Inspectorate, established in 1999, now has a pivotal role in the inspection of residential child care facilities operated by the state as part of the Health Information and Quality Authority (Hiqa). Private residential centres are inspected by the HSE. Significantly, all residential centres are inspected against national standards.

Yet the social services inspectorate has identified, in its annual reports, problems with varying standards in residential centres. The report's recommendation on objective national standards for inspection of all settings where children are placed must now be implemented.

Recommendation 17 provides for after-care services for young adults leaving residential care as part of a support structure. At present, section 45 of the 1991 Child Care Act allows the HSE to assist such persons until they have reached the age of 21, if it is satisfied that such assistance is needed. This provision is discretionary, and not mandatory.

The reality is that the HSE, hard pressed in the allocation of resources, may choose to devote its limited resources to vulnerable children at risk, rather than to providing aftercare to persons who are no longer "children" for the purposes of the Child CareAct,1991.

This is most unfortunate. What we seem to forget is that a young person's vulnerability may not end simply end because they turn 18. I believe that the section 45 provision should be strengthened to provide support, where necessary, for all children leaving residential care until the age of 21. Even a modest investment in aftercare offers significant returns in terms of public expenditure on the criminal justice system.

Where a child has been placed in the care of the HSE there are several options open to the HSE in providing for his or her care. One such option is foster care. Over the past decade, the relative use of foster care as a substitute care facility has undergone a definite change and it has been propelled to the centre of child care in this jurisdiction. Some 9 0 per cent of the children in the care of the HSE are now placed in foster care. There has been a concentrated effort to encourage people to become foster parents to children whose parents cannot care for them.

This report should galvanise our efforts to ensure this continues. The challenge for Ireland is to learn from this report and the experiences of those whose childhoods were stolen from them.

Implementing the findings of the report is a necessary starting point.

Geoffrey Shannon is a solicitor and a special rapporteur to the Oireachtas on child protection

 
 

Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.