‘Grace’ inquiry must include every player in this appalling saga

If we truly want to learn from the appallingly bad decisions made in the life of “Grace” we must also face the context in which they were made.

New terms of reference for the commission of inquiry into the “Grace” case are being drawn up following criticism that those published on Tuesday were “too narrow”.

Opposition TDs argued that the parameters must expand to include not only “Grace” (not her real name) but also 46 other children and young adults who spent time at the southeast “foster” home, and the two whistleblowers who brought Grace’s plight to light.

It is important that the other 46 are included, not only to establish whether they suffered abuse, but also to establish whether there was a pattern in how allegations of abuse at the home were handled.

Concept of ‘family values’ undermines women’s rights – UN

---

Tuam reminds of unmarried mothers being ‘judged and rejected’

---

Catholic Church should hand over hospitals to State - Martin

---

Katherine Zappone seeks AG advice on abortion Bill

---

Apparent inertia

The two whistleblowers must also be included. To exclude these two social workers and their experiences – and persistence in the face of apparent inertia on the part of other actors in this saga – would be bizarre.

What we know is that Grace was placed in care by her teenage mother in the late 1970s. Grace has a severe intellectual disability and cannot speak. She spent time in a number of care settings before being placed in the "foster" home by the then South Eastern Health Board (SEHB) in 1989, when aged 10 to 11.

She stayed there for 20 years, despite credible allegations of serious sexual abuse at the home. We know one was made in 1992 from the family of another girl who stayed in the home. We know another, from a family in England, was made in 1996. Concerns had also been raised by the Brothers of Charity, who stopped placing young people in the home in 1991.

Importantly, this was not a foster home. It was neither assessed nor approved as such. It was a privately operated respite service in a family home.

GP’s intervention

We know in 1995 Grace got a place in a day-service following a GP’s intervention. In 1996, the health board decided to remove Grace from the home. In October 1996 that was overturned, though all further SEHB placements stopped.

A plan drawn up in 2001 to gradually remove Grace from the home was not implemented.

The first whistleblower, new to the region, took up Grace’s case in 2007. His view was that the “foster” home was inappropriate and Grace should be removed. His recommendation that the HSE apply for her wardship was not acted on.

In the end he contacted Grace’s birth mother in 2009 and told her of the concerns about sexual abuse. It was the first she heard of these. She demanded her daughter be removed immediately and she was, on July 17th, 2009.

Overturned

In addition to establishing what happened to Grace, we need to know who recruited this “foster” home and why? How were allegations of abuse in 1992 and 1996 handled? Why was the 1996 decision to remove Grace overturned? Who had concerns about Grace’s welfare in 1995/1996, what were they and what was done about them? What was her birth mother told, or not told, and why?

Crucially, were individuals at fault in this saga, or was there systemic bad governance? Was there a culture more focused on concealing this bad governance than on Grace’s welfare ?

Uncomfortably, does this culture continue? Does it go beyond “Grace”?