COURT HEARING:THE HIGH Court ruled yesterday that a report into the HSE handling of a case where parents were convicted of a series of offences against their children, including assault, should be published.
The parents are serving lengthy jail sentences for the offences and the children are now in care.
Mr Justice John MacMenamin described the negative impact “sensationalised media coverage” had had on the children, and made a number of orders preventing the publication of any information that alone, or in conjunction with other information, could lead to them being identified.
These orders included the prohibition of any direct or indirect approach to the children, including those who are no longer minors, by media representatives.
The report, ordered in January 2009 by the HSE, followed widespread concern about the case when the details of the neglect and abuse of the six children emerged during the two criminal trials. It was drawn up by a team of four under the chairmanship of Norah Gibbons from Barnardos, including two representatives of the HSE.
The judge said that the issue in this application was whether, having regard to the constitutional and European Convention on Human Rights issues, publication should be allowed. He said he would give a detailed judgment later, but decided that, on balance, the report should be published.
“I emphasise that this decision was reached on balance because of the deep concerns which the children have regarding any further publicity,” he said.
He said he had met the children in a relatively informal way without lawyers and he described them as “remarkably brave and resilient”. They wanted to be able to live their own lives in a normal way and were very fearful of the publicity involved in any publication, he said.
“Of particular concern was some of the sensationalised media coverage,” he said. “One of the children said: ‘I prefer that they never took me into care at all. It would be better to live at home than to go through what the media have done. I can’t do it again.’
“One simply cannot ignore the extent to which the children themselves now feel that the publication of the report could lead to them having to relive what they wish to forget.”
Some of them wished the report to be published, others did not. Following a period of consultation, on balance a number, though by no means all, felt that more good than bad could come from its publication, provided that sensationalised coverage does not take place, Mr Justice MacMenamin said. Two of the children remained resolutely opposed to the publication of the report.
“The question comes down to a balance of rights – such as the right to freedom of expression, the constitutional rights and guarantees due to children generally, including life and bodily integrity; as compared to the rights to privacy, dignity, good name and the strong wishes of those opposed.”
The subject matter of the report is a matter of public interest in the broadest sense, he said. A number of the children had expressed the hope that the report might mean there was no repetition elsewhere of what had occurred. He said that this was decisive, provided they were not made live through the experience again.
He added that there was also a question of public accountability, as the report had been commissioned by the HSE and this was known. A decision not to publish would itself be a public judgment with consequent publicity.
Therefore, on balance, the rights of the public determined the outcome in favour of the publication of the report.
MAIN POINTS
- The family was known to the Western Health Board since 1989 when, after the birth of their first child, a concerned neighbour contacted the public health nurse expressing concern about the extent of the parents’ alcohol consumption and about alcohol being given to the baby.
- Social work staff were overly optimistic that the parents of the six children would, with support, improve their habits. For this reason the interventions provided were often not appropriate.
- Social workers were not sufficiently alert to indications of ongoing neglect. Such indications included the squalor in which the children almost constantly lived and the fact that they were left alone or in the care of an underaged sibling.
- The views and opinions of the parents were accepted largely at face value by some health board staff.
- One social worker who wrote to the parents about their children being infested with head lice in 2001 got a response from the father saying if the staff member continued with these allegations he would sue for slander.
- Staff did not exercise their statutory authority to protect the children at the earliest possible point.
Resources per se were not an issue in this case but there were proportionately fewer social workers allocated by the Western Health Board to Roscommon, compared to Galway and Mayo.
- Two unaccredited social workers were consciously employed to work on the case, which the inquiry team said was particularly disturbing.
- There was little evidence to suggest a learning culture from inquiries into previous cases of abuse prevailed in HSE West.
- Although a plethora of services was involved with the family, it was the wide range of services and their deployment, rather than a lack of them, which contributed to a failure to recognise the full extent of the children’s suffering.
- The children were coached by the parents to give the impression to outsiders that all was well and this was not picked up by the professionals involved. It was only when allegations of abuse were made in 2004 that the “children rescued themselves” and all of them were taken into care.
- The inquiry team expressed concern that the childcare service in Roscommon continues to hold a Q mark for quality in child protection work saying it gives the misleading impression of high practice standards.