Like other secondary schools across the State, The King’s Hospital has very clear obligations setting out how it should protect the safety and welfare of children in its care.
A key question now facing the school is this: did it comply with these procedures, given the apparent delay in alerting authorities to the alleged sexual assault of a 13-year-old boy.
While the alleged assault occurred on a Thursday night, it is understood that the Garda and the child safety agency, Tusla, were not notified about the incident until about four days later.
The school’s child protection policy is unambiguous.
It states: “The board of management recognises that child protection and welfare considerations permeate all aspects of school life and must be reflected in all of the school’s policies, practices and activities.
It goes on to say that it has adopted official child protection procedures produced by the Department of Education.
Concerns
These procedures state that in any cases where school personnel have concerns over children who may have been abused, the matter shall be reported “without delay” to the State’s child protection services.
Under these procedures, an allegation or suspicion of abuse should be reported to the school’s “designated liaison person”.
The King’s Hospital’s child protection policy lists this individual as the school’s principal, John Rafter.
If this individual is not sure whether to report the allegations, official procedures state that the liaison person should seek the advice of Tusla, the State’s child and family service.
Tusla may then advise on whether a report should or should not be made.
While there is a question over whether procedures were followed, there is also a question of whether the law was broken or not.
Statutory footing
Children First guidelines – which are the basis of the Department of Education child protection procedures – are being placed on a statutory footing.
This will impose a mandatory duty on designated persons to report concerns to authority.
However, key sections of the legislation, while enacted, have yet to be officially commenced. These deal with mandatory reporting obligations.
Dr Geoffrey Shannon, a child law expert, said that regardless of the legal status of Children First, there is an overall "positive obligation" on schools to protect children.
While he declined to comment specifically on the King’s Hospital case, he said: “Schools owe students a general duty of care – that is a duty which is in addition to any duty that arises under a statutory regime.”
This is provided for under other pieces of legislation and wider jurisprudence in this area.
The aim of Children First guidelines were important, he said, in that they aim to provide a framework to ensure concerns are dealt with by schools and other bodies in a consistent and uniform way.
Duty of care
“Children First guidelines impose a responsibility on the school’s board of management to have a clear written procedure in place governing action to be taken where allegations of abuse arise.
“Also, teachers have a general duty of care to ensure that arrangements are in place to protect children and young people from harm while at school,” he said.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Education confirmed that responsibility for ensuring that child protection requirements are complied with rests with the school board, the principal and the staff of each school.
“Children First and the department’s child protection procedures for schools provide that all child protection concerns shall be reported to the Child and Family Agency,” a spokeswoman said.
