Full transcript of report into Catholic Diocese of Raphoe

Recommendations

It is recommended that:-

1. Bishop Boyce should continue to support the Child Protection Committee and encourage them to regularly review and monitor the policies and procedures that apply within the diocese. Care should be taken to ensure that they comply fully with the requirement of Safeguarding Children: Standards and Guidance as well as Children First.

2. Bishop Boyce should ensure that a written referral is made to statutory authorities when a safeguarding concern arises. He should also ensure that referrals are made to the CDF in line with current Church guidance.

3. Bishop Boyce should build on the introduction of a qualified lay person to the role of Deputy Designated person and consider the replacement of the clerical designated person with a further qualified lay member, in line with developments nationally.

4. As the commissioner of assessments, Bishop Boyce should ensure that a formal written contract with any Assessment Centre is used, and that should include that he owns any report produced rather than it being seen as the property of the referred.

5. Bishop Boyce should continue to develop a sound working relationship with an Gardaí, the HSE and the Probation Board with regard to the management of all current cases within the diocese.

6. Bishop Boyce should meet on a regular basis with the chairs of committees to agree objectives and to monitor and review progress against these objectives. Each committee should have a written description of their role and function which would include their reporting relationship with Bishop Boyce.

7. The Designated Person should meet regularly with the Support person and Adviser to discuss and brief each other on their work. They should agree objectives and monitor and review progress against these objectives

8. The Child Protection Committee should ensure that all trainers are made aware of the anxiety experienced by a number of clergy through fear of the subject of child abuse, or of being the subject of a false allegation. They should also engage with the National Board toward finding a solution to the problem.

9. The Child Protection Committee should continue to seek and avail of appropriate skills training for those in key positions who deal directly with people associated with allegations. These should include the priest Designated person, the Advisor, Bishop Boyce and the Support Person.

10. The Chair of the Child Protection Committee should encourage, where possible, more members receive relevant specialist and accredited training to ensure the knowledge base in the group is spread more widely and support is available to the current trainers in the event of future change.

11. The Child Protection Committee should prepare and publish a further Annual Report on developments in the diocese.

12. Bishop Boyce should review the role of Support Person and ensure that it proactively engages with the complainant following an allegation to assess and respond to their support and advice needs.

13. Bishop Boyce should consider bringing the names of the roles and groups that form part of the diocese’s safeguarding framework into line with those contained in Resource 1 of Safeguarding Children: Standards and Guidance document.

Background

The National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church (NBSCCC) was asked by the Sponsoring Bodies, namely the Episcopal Conference, the Conference of Religious of Ireland, and the Irish Missionary Union, to undertake a comprehensive review of safeguarding practice within and across all the Church authorities on the island of Ireland.

The purpose of the review was to confirm that current safeguarding practice complied with the standards set down within the guidance issued by the Sponsoring Bodies in February 2009 and that all known allegations and concerns had been appropriately dealt with.

To achieve this task, safeguarding practice in each Church authority was to be reviewed through an examination of case records and through interviews with key personnel involved both within and external to the diocese.

The findings of the review will be shared with a reference group before being submitted to the diocese along with any recommendations arising from the findings.

This report contains the findings of the Review of Safeguarding Practice within the Diocese of Raphoe undertaken by the NBSCCC in line with the request made to it by the Sponsoring Bodies. It is based upon the case material made available to the reviewers by the diocese.

NBSCCC do not have powers of compellability and therefore sharing of data has been done on the basis of consent. The NBSCCC believes that all relevant documentation for the cases in the diocese of Raphoe was passed to the reviewers. This has been confirmed by the diocese.

The National Board would like to acknowledge the approach adopted by Bishop Boyce and his team, who demonstrated commitment to best practice in inviting the reviewers to examine safeguarding practice.

The terms of reference of NBSCCC’s review covers an assessment of current risk. An examination of existing cases provides great insight into how cases were managed historically and most importantly as to how cases are currently assessed, whether the statutory agencies are notified and how those who pose a risk are managed within the diocese.

The period under examination - 1st January 1975 to 1st August 2010 covers a time when three bishops were in office. References are therefore made to both past management by the three bishops and current management by Bishop Boyce.

For Clarification –

The National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church, NBSCCC, National Board, National Office - all these terms are synonymous with each other and refer to the same entity.

Also the term Designated Person is interchangeable with that of Designated Officer or Delegate. A precise definition of the content of the role may be found on Page 55 of Safeguarding Children: Standards and Guidance document.

Introduction

The purpose of the review is set out within the Terms of Reference that are appended to this report. It seeks to examine practice within the diocese, highlighting that which is good but also highlighting areas of poor practice and applying to them recommendations for implementation in order to safeguard our children more effectively.

It is an expectation held by the National Board that key findings from the review will be shared widely so that public awareness of what is being done may be increased and with it, confidence that this diocese is now taking appropriate steps to safeguard children.

It is also an expectation of NBSCCC that a time bound action plan is prepared based on the recommendations made in this review.

Methodology

Case files comprising complaints, witness statements, respondent statements, notes of interviews and discussions, assessment reports, correspondence and other written material have been examined to form a view of the quality of practice provided to complainants and respondents in the area of safeguarding children.

In addition, people with a safeguarding role within the diocese, including Bishop Boyce and representatives from outside agencies, have been interviewed with the purpose of adding to this assessment of the quality of current practice.

In line with the Terms of Reference, fourteen case files relating to diocesan priests, against whom allegations were made, were examined.

The report employs the seven standards outlined within Safeguarding Children: Standards and Guidance document as a template for drawing conclusions and commentary on past and present practice.

This is followed by a set of recommendations to be applied by the diocese. Upon examination all files were found to be well ordered, consistently structured and containing chronologies which made the task of reading and assessing the content a great deal easier. Attention had been paid to ensuring that the content of the files were accessible to readers.

Interviews were conducted with Bishop Boyce, Advisory Committee members, Child Safeguarding Committee members, along with the Diocesan Designated Person and Assistant Diocesan Designated Person.

A representative from the HSE was also interviewed. A telephone conversation with an Inspector of the Gardaí confirmed that a good working relationship exists between the diocese and the Gardaí. Bishop Boyce concurs with this view. He has recently reviewed all his cases and discussed them in detail with the Gardaí.

A similar process has also taken place with HSE, who also feel that the relationship with Bishop Boyce is open and receptive to putting in place safeguards in the interests of children.

HSE have also made a commitment to work proactively with the diocese both in terms of the management of allegations and to increase awareness of the impact of abuse. NBSCCC commend Bishop Boyce and local HSE personnel for having a very clear joint agenda which is focused on the safety of children.

As stated above the Diocese of Raphoe has experienced a significant level of clerical abuse cases reported in the past two decades. Amongst these one particular case stands out. This involved a serial paedophile priest who was the subject of a book and also of a great deal of media attention.

This priest, Fr. Eugene Greene, was charged and convicted of a number of serious offences against children. This case is included in the review.

It is clear that significant errors of judgement were made by successive bishops when responding to child abuse allegations that emerged within this diocese. Too much emphasis was placed on the situation of the accused priest and too little on the needs of their complainants.

Judgements were clouded, due to the presenting problem being for example, alcohol abuse and an inability to hear the concerns about abuse of children, through that presenting problem.

More attention should have been given to ensuring that preventative actions were taken quickly when concerns came to light. This view is based on an assessment of cases reported to the diocese and includes a number which were received during the previous bishops’ time in office.

It is a matter of great regret to Bishop Boyce that his focus on victims’ needs was not greater in the past, and he now acknowledges that he has a very different appreciation of his safeguarding responsibilities as to when he first came into office.

The reviewers would accept that this is the case and would wish to commend Bishop Boyce on his willingness to learn the painful lessons of the past and to apply them to the current practice in the diocese.

STANDARDS

This section provides the findings of the review. The template employed to present the findings are the seven standards, set down and described in the Church guidance, Safeguarding Children: Standards and Guidance.

This guidance was launched in February 2009 and was endorsed and adopted by all the Church authorities who minister on the island of Ireland, including the Diocese of Raphoe.

Standard 1

A written policy on keeping children safe

Each child should be cherished and affirmed as a gift from God with an inherent right to dignity of life and bodily integrity, which shall be respected, nurtured and protected by all.

Bishop Boyce has established all the relevant structures required by the standards document to enhance the implementation of safeguarding within his diocese. The review included interviews with key personnel responsible for establishing and implementing these structures.

Written Policies

The Child Protection Committee is the main source of child protection development within the diocese and from meeting with representatives of that committee there is no doubt about their enthusiasm to ensure relevant policies are in place.

The committee is made up of volunteer lay and clerical members. The mix of experience within the group reflects an attempt to draw on a range of child protection expertise.

In interview, the committee representatives demonstrated their commitment to develop safeguarding structures and constructively challenge as appropriate. They view their main role as ensuring that practice in the diocese and parishes is effective and reflects policies and procedures.

The committee have produced an abundance of written materials in consultation with others. Their first annual report (2006/7) gives detail of progress made since they were set up by Bishop Boyce in the autumn of 2006. No further annual report was presented at the interview.

One of the main products of the committee has been a series of best practice leaflets which have now been collated into the Child Protection Policy Handbook (2008).

This has been distributed to all parishes and to individuals who have accessed child protection training in the diocese. In line with the Standards, the policy document will be due for review in 2011.

A policy statement contained within this document has been adapted to include relevant referral contact details to be used by anyone with concerns about a child’s safety. This statement includes a range of child focused activities and is intended for display in public places in parish buildings.

One of the key areas explored with committee members was the issue of their confidence that policies and procedures are effectively implemented in the parishes. In order to assess this, the committee arranged an event to which parish representatives were invited.

In addition a self audit (Safeguarding Children Policy and Procedures Checklist) has been forwarded to parish priests for completion. No mandate to attend was attached to this request as the committee feel they have no right to insist.

Despite this the return rate was high (33 parishes and 8 independent curacies). Whilst this self-report provides an indicator that the parishes have responded well to the requirements of the Safeguarding Children: Standards and Guidance, there remains a challenge for Bishop Boyce that he feels confident the structures work effectively. Consideration should be given to adopting an annual audit of policy and practice in parishes and reporting the findings to NBSCCC as part of an assessment of how the structures are implemented in the future.

Safe recruitment and vetting is reported as having been implemented in every parish for both clerical and lay personnel and the self-report audit tool designed by the committee to elicit feedback on implementation requests information about this practice also.

The foregoing paragraph indicates that a significant start has been made to establishing safeguarding structures in the diocese and confirmation of this has been sought through self-report. It is to the credit of Bishop Boyce and his staff and volunteers that they have responded in this way to the requirements of Safeguarding Children: Standards and Guidance.

Recommendation 1:

Bishop Boyce should continue to support the Child Protection Committee and encourage them to regularly review and monitor the policies and procedures that apply within the diocese. Care should be taken to ensure that they comply fully with the requirement of Safeguarding Children: Standards and Guidance as well as Children First.

Standard 2:

Table of the incidence of Safeguarding allegations received within the Diocese of Raphoe from 1st January 1975 up to 1st August 2010

1 Number of priests incardinated into the Diocese of Raphoe against whom allegations have been made since the 1st January 1975 up to the date of the Review (14)

2 Number of allegations reported to An Garda Síochána involving priests of the diocese since 1st January 1975 (52)

3 Number of allegations reported to the HSE (or the Health Boards which preceded the setting up of the HSE,) involving priests of the diocese since 1st January 1975 (52)

4 Number of priests against whom an allegation was made and who were living at the date of the Review (14)

5 Number of priests against whom an allegation was made and who are deceased (0)

6 Number of priests against whom an allegation was made and who are “Out of Ministry” or who have left the priesthood (8)

7 Number of priests of the diocese who have been convicted of having committed an offence or offences against a child or young person since the 1st January 1975 (4)

8 Number of priests of the diocese against whom an allegation has been made and who are in ministry or who had retired at the date of the Review (6)

9 Number of priests who are not of the diocese but who reside within it, and who are known to be the subject of an allegation arising from their past ministry. (2)

Management of allegations

Children have a right to be listened to and heard: Church organisations must respond effectively and ensure any allegations and suspicions of abuse are reported both within the Church and to civil authorities.

The safeguarding structure within the diocese is mainly staffed by lay people who have volunteered for their roles. The Designated Person is a priest and he is more ill at ease with the tasks associated with his role. This discomfort is related to the fact that those against whom allegations are made are generally well known to him and in some circumstances life long friends.

As a priest, (as is the case throughout the country), the task of being totally objective in these situations, can be very difficult and can add significant pressure to established colleague relationships.

The recent introduction of a lay Deputy Designated Person is to be welcomed. This development should be built upon and it would serve the diocese well if the practice of appointing clerical designated persons was phased out in favour of lay personnel only. This development is being recommended in other dioceses.

Following an interview with the clerical Designated Person it was clear that the guidelines are not referenced on a regular basis when handling complaints. In fact a number of the personnel in the safeguarding structure interviewed were not as familiar with the content of the various standards and guidelines as they should be.

The Designated Person had not received any formal training in safeguarding when he took over the role in January 2009, though he previously had acted as support person and therefore had an awareness of the issues.

He has since attended meetings and training organised by the National Office in Maynooth. It is also evident it is not a role in which he felt comfortable but he undertook it out of a sense of responsibility and a desire to ensure better practice in the diocese.

The role of Designated Person is not popular amongst priests and identifying someone to take this role on can be difficult. While conscious that the role needed to be filled it appeared that the Designated Person was not completely confident and at an emotional level was challenged by the tasks involved in the role.

He expressed a preference for learning the role through experience rather than reading through the guidelines and preferred talking to people as a source of learning the job.

He also expressed concern that guidelines and personnel with whom he engaged were constantly changing and that he was receiving conflicting advice from different sources around the country.

The development of one set of national guidelines and the regular meetings now scheduled with Designated Persons nationally have helped significantly and have proved helpful and insightful for the priest designated person. He added that he approaches his role firstly from a pastoral point of view.

Upon examination it was found that record keeping generally was of good quality in so far as the files were well organised. We would however recommend that all new case files should make use of the template devised by the NBSCCC which can be downloaded from the website www.safeguarding.ie as agreed between solicitors for NBSCCC and solicitors for the Sponsoring Bodies.

The relationship between the Church and civil authorities has been good in the recent past. Key personnel in HSE and Gardaí have remained the same for some time.

This has helped to establish firmer working relationships between these bodies and the diocese. There is now a more positive working relationship as reflected in regular liaison meetings between Bishop Boyce and the local Garda Detective Inspector and a desire on the part of HSE to positively engage with the diocese to establish a process of risk management for all sex offenders in the district.

As has already been stated, in the past guidelines have not been universally implemented and awareness of reporting requirements by some clergy was lacking. Historically, on occasions, there were delays in reporting concerns to the appropriate authorities.

For safeguarding procedures to operate effectively it is important that all staff within the diocese are aware of the obligation to report. This must be a universal requirement, particularly as a curate or parish priest is likely to be the first recipient of allegations or concerns of abuse. NBSCCC are satisfied that all allegations have now been reported to the civil authorities for their investigations and that current practice reflects prompt notification on the part of the diocese.

Referral to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) should occur in line with Church guidance. A significant influence is the attitude of the bishop as to the credibility of an allegation.

In most cases the CDF have not been notified until such times as prosecution is made or laicisation is being sought. It is recommended that the guidance issued by the CDF in 2001 should be adhered to fully in relation to notifying them of all allegations of clerical child abuse which hold “a semblance of truth”.

There is evidence in the files suggesting that, in some instances and especially where the credibility of the accused is high, the church authorities appear to offer support primarily to the respondent and their family. Initial contact with the complainant relates to collating the facts of the allegation.

Whilst there are some examples of offers of contact and support for the complainant following this initial contact, there is little evidence that this has happened routinely.

Experience would suggest that contact with church representatives would be welcomed by complainants and would go a long way to meeting many of their needs at that time.

However, contact with the complainants may not be possible, especially if they didn’t come to the Church in the first instance, as their first approach may have been at the initiation of a legal process or their whereabouts may not be known.

The offer of the Priest’s Adviser is seldom accepted and when it is, it has been the choice of the respondent as to who that should be. However, we would encourage Bishop Boyce to continue to offer the Priest Adviser in cases when they arise.

The files and interviews raise some concerns about the Advisory Panel and how it is used which suggest that it should be used in a more efficient way. On many occasions records show that selected members are called upon as consultants to Bishop Boyce in the early stages following disclosure.