A court ruling allows a glimpse at the usually secret injustices carried out by executive in the name of child protection, writes JOHN WATERS
ALTHOUGH WE have heard many shocking things about the HSE, the suspicion remains that this organisation’s greatest misdeeds are not amenable to exposure. From communications I receive from citizens who have had the misfortune to fall foul of the HSE in the area of what is called child protection, I would say that by far the greatest abuses occur in this context. Most of the time, secrecy provisions make this impossible to demonstrate.
But, from time to time, the curtain slips and a glimpse is provided into the workings of an organisation for which the rights or reputations of individuals are as easily disposed of as healthy wombs or kidneys.
Last month, the High Court delivered a judgment which facilitated such a glimpse into the nature of routine HSE operations. The action had been taken by a male teacher arising from the circumstance in which he had been accused of sexually abusing a male student, an accusation made by the student’s mother. The student himself refused to make a statement to the Garda, and insisted the matter be dropped. The DPP decided, in the absence of such a statement, that no prosecution was possible.
The mother was a former employee of the South Western Area Health Board. The accused man was also known to the same board, having previously been accused by his former wife of sexually abusing his daughter. These charges were dropped when the complainant refused to allow the child to be assessed.
On receiving written notice from an investigating social worker of the new allegation against him, the applicant had denied the accusations, but refused to meet the social worker because he had insufficient time to consider the allegation or seek advice. He requested certain information, including the name of the student and the date(s) of the alleged abuse, and an unedited copy of the allegations as submitted by the complainant.
The social worker declined his requests and informed him that, if he chose not to make an appearance, the health board would decide in his absence whether to inform any third parties, including his employer, family members or neighbours “as to the nature of these allegations”, according to the written verdict of the High Court.
Five months later, without having spoken to the man or responding to any of his questions, social workers informed the man’s employer of the allegation.
A striking insight into the culture of the HSE is revealed in the language of the social workers. In one communication, a social worker noted: “The allegation was put to the perp but he refused to meet with the social workers so the allegation was put to his employer.” (“Perp” is an abbreviation of “perpetrator”.)
It emerged in court that much of the communication between the HSE and the complainants had been conducted through counsellors in the US, to where the family had moved. These counsellors claimed to have “validated” the complaint on the basis of the “consistency of the details” and the “emotional difficulties” of the child.
Another remarkable aspect is that, for several years, the man was allowed to continue teaching, despite the allegations against him. In April 2006, five years after the complaint was first submitted, he was placed on administrative leave with full pay.
In July 2006, he initiated proceedings against the HSE and his employer, alleging that he had been denied fair procedures, that the HSE had failed to conduct an independent inquiry and refused to give him key documents.
Soon afterwards, school authorities became concerned about the case. In February 2007, the school’s lawyers wrote to HSE lawyers describing the HSE’s position as “astounding”, and noting that the “fundamental infirmities” of the case had been known to the HSE in December 2005, before the activation of the process which resulted in the man being placed on leave.
The man subsequently declined an offer of reinstatement, on the grounds that the uninvestigated allegation continued to cast a cloud over him. He has received no pay since August 2007.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Iarlaith O’Neill referred to a “litany of failures” by the HSE. Social workers, he said, had “totally disregarded” the “extraordinary jeopardy” in which the applicant had been placed by virtue of being asked to attend meetings without knowing the detail of allegations, or having sight of relevant documents.
The judge also found that the HSE had delegated to others its responsibility to investigate. That a counsellor acting for the complainant had been permitted to “validate” complaints made by her client represented a “wholly impermissible” conflict of interest. The health board had misrepresented the nature of this “investigation” to the school.
The judge also said that representatives of the HSE had entered into “entirely inappropriate” relationships with the mother of the complainant and her representatives. HSE representatives appeared to treat the complainant as if a client-style relationship existed between her and the HSE.
The judge found in favour of the man. The HSE’s investigation, said the judge, had been “utterly wanting in the norms of natural justice”, and showed “an extraordinary disregard” of the applicant’s constitutional right to natural justice and fair procedures.