THE REPORT into the circumstances of the death of Kelly Fitzgerald contained inaccuracies and unfair conclusions, the Chief Executive Officer of the Western Health Board (WHB), Mr Eamonn Hannan, said yesterday.
Mr Hannan, who was appearing before the Dail Joint Committee on the Family, said that publication of the report had been "grossly unfair" to WHB staff who had worked conscientiously in support of the Fitzgerald family. They had been judged not by the standards and knowledge of the time, but by more recent research into child care.
The CEO was accompanied by Dr Marita Glackin, WHB public health specialist and former director of community care, and by Mr James Mansfield, WHB child care development officer and former senior social worker.
Mr Hannan told the committee that the board had received correspondence from a firm of solicitors representing one of its employees following general publication of the report.
He said that the report contained much opinion which could not reasonably be inferred from the facts.
Hindsight had been employed to a considerable extent and reliance had been placed on evidence apparently obtained from third parties whose identities were not known.
There was a "culture of scapegoating" in our society and the unfortunate implication was that the death of the teenager could be "traced to the alleged inability of the board to deliver its services efficiently" and that it was therefore unnecessary to look in any wider way at the causes of child abuse and neglect.
Mr Alan Shatter (FG) said that the WHB appeared to be incapable of accepting responsibility for its own failure.
Since the death of Kelly Fitzgerald, significant changes in child care practices had been made and the likelihood of a similar situation occurring again would be "a lot less", said Mr Hannan.
Replying to a question from Ms Frances Fitzgerald (FG), Mr Hannan said that, in a similar case in the future, intervention would be more "decisive". He added: "It is my firm conviction that the result of the failure to develop coherent and well resourced policies in child welfare is to condemn many children to avoidable neglect and abuse in the future."
The CEO emphasised that the decision to set up the inquiry had been his own, because he wanted an external and objective view to see if there was something that could be learned by this tragic case". However, it did not necessarily follow that he had to accept everything which had been said.
In relation to Girl 3, Kelly's younger sister, Dr Glackin said that emotional abuse was extremely difficult to diagnose. When Girl 3 was hospitalised in December 1991 she had been seen by two paediatricians and a child psychiatrist. After this, legal advice had been sought about obtaining a Fit Person Order, an order to take the child into care.
Dr Glackin said that, despite this, the WHB had no right to enter the Fitzgerald home or to compel the parents to allow access to Kelly. At the time of the events leading to Kelly's sad death, child protection had been largely governed by the 1908 Act.
Mr chatter said that when a child was considered to be at risk, and the 1908 Act was found to be inadequate, an application could be made to make a child a ward of court. He questioned whether such a consideration had been made for Girl 3 or for Kelly Fitzgerald.
"The question of taking child protection procedures for Kelly did not arise", Dr Glackin replied.
She added that the only indication of problems came from earlier records from the UK. Simply not seeing Kelly would not have been reason for the board to try to obtain access through the courts.
Dr Glackin said that, following a number of visits to the Fitzgerald home, the board's social worker had expressed concern that she had not been able to see Kelly in the flesh. However, she added, from the time of Kelly's arrival to the time of her death there had never been any indication that there was anything amiss with her.