Church's desire for control mars child protection code

The Catholic Church's child protection guidelines are a fine piece of work but flawed on the issue of reporting allegations to…

The Catholic Church's child protection guidelines are a fine piece of work but flawed on the issue of reporting allegations to the civil authorities, writes Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs Correspondent

Maureen Lynott, chairwoman of the disbanded working group which advised Catholic Church representatives in preparing the Our Children, Our Church child protection guidelines, launched in Dublin yesterday, was in no doubt. It was a tremendous day, she said.

The new guidelines met the highest international standards and were, by any measure, more transparent than any other policy in place under the State's guidelines, she said. Ms Lynott also chaired the body which prepared those Children First State guidelines.

The new Catholic Church guidelines are indeed very comprehensive, not least in their code of good practice for church personnel.

READ MORE

This, for instance, not only outlaws physical punishment of children under any circumstances, it advises against ever being alone with a child even while travelling in a car or minibus. Favouritism is outlawed as is spending a "disproportionate" amount of time with any child or group of children.

But it is on the old issue of control that the new guidelines fall short of the ideal. Indeed this was the very issue which led to the disbandment in September 2004 of the working group set up to advise the church on the guidelines.

On September 16th, 2004, in a letter to the church steering committee, members of the working group said they were "greatly dismayed and disappointed that we have arrived at this point".

The issue which led to the disbandment of the group was that of who should have final authority when it came to reporting allegations to the civil authorities - a bishop/religious superior or a designated lay professional.

Members of the working group were unanimous it should be the lay professional. The wording in their draft read: "When an allegation that a priest, religious, employee or volunteer has abused a child, it must be recorded in writing by the person who receives it and it must be reported to the Director of Child Protection immediately. The Director of Child Protection immediately reports it to the civil authorities."

Members of the church steering group, particularly its Conference of Religious of Ireland (Cori) representatives, were adamant such decisions on reporting should be the province of the relevant bishop/religious superior.

We were told yesterday that all allegations of child abuse against church personnel shall be reported without delay to the relevant director of child protection. He/she "shall immediately inform the bishop or religious superior or, in the case of lay personnel, the chairperson of the Church organisation".

It continued that when an allegation of child abuse is received, the director of child protection "shall determine whether there are 'reasonable grounds for concern' that child abuse may have occurred" before proceeding further. If he/she decides to proceed further, the relevant bishop/religious superior must be informed in advance.

"Where it is established that there are 'reasonable grounds for concern' that child abuse has occurred, the Director of Child Protection shall, on behalf of the bishop or religious superior, or chairperson of the Church organisation, report the allegation to the civil authorities immediately."

Otherwise he/she may decide "to seek greater clarification and further information in establishing whether 'reasonable grounds for concern' exist" or may decide to take no further action against the accused person where it is determined "it would have been impossible for the person complained of to have committed the alleged action or offence . . ."

Quite a lot of wriggle room there, worryingly and unnecessarily so.

This could have been avoided very simply by agreement that all allegations are referred immediately to the civil authorities for them to assess, investigate and deal with.

It is reassuring to know that such directors of child protection, as will be appointed, will be professionally qualified lay people.

It was also heartening to hear Bishop Colm O'Reilly say at yesterday's launch that "while the principle of informing the bishop about the allegation is accepted in the document, the policy recognises the moral, professional and statutory obligation of the Director of Child Protection to report an allegation or suspicion of child abuse to the civil authorities, irrespective of the opinion of any other person about the case, including the bishop or religious superior".

But it must be remembered that relevant directors of child protection will be employees of the church. That allows for the perception, unfair perhaps but no less relevant, that they could be compromised in dealing with this issue. It would have been better for everyone's sake, not least that of the church, were it agreed that all allegations of whatever nature be reported immediately to the civil authorities.

It might be argued that the new inter-agency review group in each diocese - involving the local church, health and Garda authorities - will lessen the likelihood that a director of child protection would act improperly in such instances. It is also the case, and increasingly so, that many church-based organisations in the health and education contexts particularly, come under the direct responsibility of State agencies and are therefore governed by the State's Children First guidelines.

It is a pity the church could not have agreed with its working group instead of taking a route which has marred, somewhat, child-protection guidelines that in every other way amount to a very fine piece of work indeed.