PARENTS who requested their children back from industrial reform schools were frequently ignored, and the child was often regarded as a commodity of the state, according to a UCC history researcher.Sarah-Anne Buckley, currently studying unpublished NSPCC case files for a doctoral thesis, maintains that the involvement of the NSPCC (now the ISPCC) inspector in the removal of children from the home to residential institutions needs to be sufficiently addressed in the debate surrounding the Ryan report.
According to the report’s findings, while the NSPCC played an important role in committing children, the extent of its involvement cannot be accurately ascertained because of a lack of documentation.
But Ms Buckley’s research shows the role of the NSPCC in removing children was apparent, as was its relationship with the religious orders, the legal profession and state agencies.
"A large part of my research has focused on the NSPCC and I have looked at the surviving NSPCC case-files in the period 1919-1940, as well as the society’s reports up to 1955," she said.
"The NSPCC concentrated its attention on the working class and rural poor. Some of the most emotive letters are those from parents requesting their children’s admission to industrial schools. Whether they believed the schools would afford a better future for their children, or they were encouraged by members of the clergy or NSPCC inspectors, the letters are heartrending pleas, as are the requests for the return of children."
In one particular case, in the 1930s, a mother wrote numerous letters to the New Ross Industrial School, the government and the local NSPCC inspector requesting the return of her 10-year-old boy.
Following this, she employed a solicitor, but to no avail. As with many similar cases, her "bad" character was cited as the reason for the rejection of her requests.
According Ms Buckley, throughout the NSPCC files, there are descriptions of poor and working-class "clients" as careless, useless, lazy, immoral, excitable, indifferent, and quarrelsome.
One inspector wrote: "The parents of ‘Y’ detained in your school are well known to me. The father is a man of very low mental standard and has neglected his family for years. The mother is not morally good. In my opinion it would be a grave error to discharge or release on licence the said client."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to us or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that we agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Source (IE)
SV (3)