Department's rigidity over children criticised

THE “INFLEXIBILITY” of the Department of Education’s policies when dealing with children and families has been criticised by Ombudsman for Children Emily Logan.

Ms Logan was addressing the Parnell Summer School in Co Wicklow yesterday on the theme of children and equality.

The department set policies and rules and “expect children and families to fit into this nice list of rules”, she said. “If you don’t fit in you might not be entitled to the additional assistance that you need.”

One case involved a child who needed to use a computer due to losing dexterity but who did not fit a specific medical diagnosis on the department’s list and was told he was not entitled to any assistance, she said. “That’s the kind of barriers children and families are up against.”

Problems caused by bureaucracy in the public service was a recurring theme in cases dealt with by her office, she said. But this was not representative of the entire public sector.

Those making administrative decisions about families sometimes never meet them. There was something “radically wrong” if a person can make a profound decision about lives and not take an interest.

There was very little legislation obliging anyone to consider the best interests of children, Ms Logan said. She encouraged people to hear the opinion of the child, she added, and then decide if that child has the capacity to give a view as children tend to speak in a practical way.

Policy should be to consider the interest of the child but these policies were about putting institutions first, she said. The Murphy commission (into abuse in the Dublin diocese) spoke of setting aside institutional loyalties and priorities so as to place children’s interests ahead of the institution, she said.

People in the public service did not always realise the negative effects of the passage of time, she said. She cited children in prison not seeing their families often, or children in civil detention for their own welfare but who do not have access to siblings. “The kind of things we were hearing in the Ryan report [into child abuse in industrial schools] are still happening. They are not as prevalent but there are children experiencing those extreme difficulties in their lives.”

Norah Gibbons, director of advocacy with Barnardos, compared the reasons behind some court orders used by the health services to place girls in care to reasons for putting girls into Magdalene laundries.

Girls are much more likely to receive special care orders for behaviour placing themselves or others at risk, Ms Gibbons said.

Freedom can be withdrawn even though they have not been to a court or committed an offence, she said.

“Applications being made on behalf of females are being made for the exact same reason [as for the Magdalene laundries] because it is believed they are in moral danger,” she said.

“You are reminded, sadly, of past times when girls were put into industrial schools for similar reasons and then on to Magdalene laundries.”

The experience of incarceration had “long term effects”, Ms Gibbons added.

Inequality affecting children in the Constitution, depending on whether they were born into married or unmarried families, was also addressed by Ms Gibbons.

The Constitution was one area where children were not being treated equally, she argued.

Rights of married parents over children were “inalienable”, regardless of how well or how poorly they carried out those duties. This meant that it was difficult to place a child for adoption after marital breakdown, even if the couple knew they were unable to care for the child. Ms Gibbons urged a change for this “small number of children who should have a second chance”.