Mother & baby home survivors: 'We feel like saying go to hell — stick your bloody redress'
Helen Culpan was raped by a local farmer as a teenager and had her child adopted by the nuns, spending time in a mother and baby home. She is still waiting for her redress payment. Picture: Patrick Browne
The mother and baby homes redress scheme was launched with much fanfare by the Government, following the issuing of a State apology to survivors of mother and baby homes.
While it understandably could never undo all the hurt caused, it was meant to go some way towards compensating the survivors for the suffering and trauma — and in many cases destroyed lives — they endured as a result of time spent in such institutions.
Agreed by the Cabinet in November 2021, it was heralded as the biggest redress scheme in the State's history, promising €800m in supports. A total of 34,000 survivors would be eligible, with payments starting at about €5,000 up to €125,000, depending on the length of time a person spent in a home. Elderly survivors would be prioritised.
But almost immediately the scheme became mired in controversy. Thousands of those who were born in mother and baby homes were excluded if they had spent less than six months in the institution, as well as those men and women who were boarded (fostered) out. Campaigners estimate up to 20,000 people have thus been excluded.
Delays in getting the scheme up and running also caused frustration and anger, particularly given the age of many of those entitled to redress.
After the Cabinet announcement by Children's Minister Roderic O'Gorman in late 2021, it was July 2023 before the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act 2023 was signed into law. The scheme was meant to open as quickly as possible for applicants, but that did not happen until March of this year. Applicants were assured of as speedy a response as possible. But this has not been the case.
The Irish Examiner recently highlighted the case of Helen Culpan, who is 90. She was raped by a local farmer as a teenager and had her child adopted by the nuns, spending time in a mother and baby home. She is still waiting for her redress payment. She recently told the that "it’s an awful thing to have to ask and wait for compensation for something that was done to you".
Another family, whose mother died while waiting for the scheme to open, told the : "We wanted our mother to benefit, but sadly that wasn't to be. But we applied when the scheme opened as she was still alive when the apology was made and we are entitled to redress on her behalf.
"But to honest it has been a nightmare to deal with. Unanswered phone calls and emails. We get updates and are then told, wait, that was wrong, we still can't make a decision, the case is more 'complex' than we first thought.
And this Cork family, whose mother was born in Bessborough, are not alone.
For example, Philomena Lee, whose attempts to trace her adopted son were chronicled in the Oscar-nominated film , is among the many survivors to experience "significant difficulties" in accessing redress, according to a recent report by the special advocate for survivors on the workings of the State's compensation scheme.
In that report, Patricia Carey, who was appointed to the role of special advocate earlier this year, speaks of “profound concern” over the contact she has had with Philomena Lee.
“At 91 years of age, Philomena and her daughter Jane had experienced ongoing and significant problems and delays accessing redress for Philomena," the report notes.
After becoming pregnant at 18, Philomena was sent to Sean Ross Abbey in Roscrea, where she gave birth to a son.
The abbey later placed her three-year-old son to be adopted by a Catholic family in the US, and her search for her son was told in the film of her name.
In the report, Ms Carey said she had engaged with 500 survivors to date and "considerable anger has been expressed in relation to the Mother and Baby Institutions Payments Scheme".
According to the report, the scheme has “caused deep upset and distress, the further re-traumatisation of some survivors, and enforced a hierarchy of suffering of survivors according to arbitrary criteria”.
And now survivors are saying they are finding themselves excluded when they begin the application for redress in the 'fine print', due to a series of clauses and technicalities that were not initially obvious when the scheme was being discussed.
These include:
- Hospitalisation for more than 180 days;
- Spending time in foster care (boarded out) while in the care of mother and baby home;
- Legal capacity.
The Department of Children said: “Section 24 of the legislation for the scheme provides for temporary absences to be included in the calculation of benefits under the scheme as long as they do not exceed 180 days and as long as the return is to the same institution.
“This is to allow for exactly the type of situation raised above eg stay(s) in a hospital. So, for example, if a baby was born in a scheduled institution but then was hospitalised before returning to the institution, all three periods will be included in the calculation of time spent in the institution.
“The payment scheme provides benefits to those who spent time in mother and baby institutions. It does not provide payments in respect of foster care.”
To date:
- More than 5,160 applications have been received, according to the latest figures from the Department of Children;
- There are 4,540 fully completed applications which have proceeded into the processing system;
- Just under 3,200 notices of determination have been issued to applicants, more than 81% of which contain an offer of benefits under the scheme;
- Applicants then have six months to consider their offer, before they need to respond to the payment office;
- Just over 1,750 payments are either processed and completed or in the process of being made.
The spoke to three people about their experiences so far with the redress scheme.
UCC professor Thomas Garavan has campaigned for the exhumation of the Tuam Babies mass grave in Galway for the past decade.
His 92-year-old mother, Margaret Daly from Castlebar in Co Mayo, was in the Tuam home from 1938 to 1941 and later boarded out.
Unknown to her at the time, her six siblings were also put into the home — her sister Teresa Angela was admitted in 1936.
Sadly, Mrs Garavan is now in a nursing home with dementia. Her son Thomas has applied for the redress package on her behalf but has now discovered he will have to make an application to the courts.
“Basically, if my mother died, I could apply without any hassle,” he said. “My mother was alive and well when the apology was made to the survivors in 2021, and that makes her eligible for redress. However, she has since fallen ill, and she is so bad now that she does not have the capacity to apply for the redress.
“My mother was in Tuam for a three-year period, and then she was boarded out, and there is no payment for the years survivors were in foster care even though they were in the care of the State.
“That means she will get roughly €30,000. But it has been so much hassle.”
Mr Garavan added: “It was a controversial scheme to begin with but now all these other issues are emerging, and it is causing so much distress for people.”
Legal capacity is an area of the law which has recently been overhauled.
The current position is that where a person requires assistance in making decisions, there are three types of arrangements that can be put in place:
- Decision-making assistance agreement;
- Co-decision-making agreement;
- Decision-making representation order.
The first two options are for circumstances in which the person in question is in a position to contribute themselves to the decision-making process.
Mr Garavan’s mother is not in this position, therefore her son will be required to apply for a Decision-Making Representation Order. This involves a court-appointed representative who makes decisions on behalf of a person.
The court will usually appoint someone who is known and trusted by that person. The representative can only make decisions that are written down in the order, including the wishes of the person involved. The decisions included in a Decision-Making Representation Order are kept under review by the court.
As the applicant representing his mother, Mr Garavan will be required to notify certain people of the application including:
- His mother as the relevant person — despite her dementia;
- The Decision Support Service;
- Other family.
The court may have one or more hearings in order to decide what to do about the application.
“This is another big hullabaloo for me to deal with and the department gives you €500 towards legal costs that is not even half of the fee,” said Mr Garavan.
In response to the issues raised, the Department of Children said: “In order to ensure that payments are made only to those who are genuinely eligible for them under the terms of the scheme, the legislation that underpins the scheme — the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act 2023 — provides that there are three application possibilities as outlined in sections 19, 36 and 37: applicants themselves; their personal representatives appointed by order of a court; or their estate representative in case of death.”
Joyce McSharry was born on May 20, 1951, in the Rotunda Hospital in Dublin and was placed in the Protestant-run Bethany mother and baby home.
Her mother, Emily Sheppey, was English and remained in the Irish institution for unmarried mothers for about seven months.
For years, Joyce was led to believe she was found as a baby beside the body of her mother, who died from gastroenteritis.
However, in 2013 when she received her records, she learned her mother had returned home to London and died in 1976 from gastroenteritis.
“She was actually living in the UK until her untimely death at age 48,” said Joyce.
"But that story about me being found beside her was a total lie. I think my adoptive parents made up that story as I was a very curious child.
"When I got older, I dug and dug for 20 years to find out who I was, nobody would tell me. I found out an awful lot that way.
“ I was adopted but it was an irregular adoption, and my adoptive parents are both dead now. I don’t know why my mother ended up in the Bethany home either.”
Joyce is entitled to the redress scheme, but she has described it as a “shameful package that must be reformed”.
She is as yet undecided whether or not she will apply. “I am eligible for it” she said. “As of yet, I have not applied.
“I am demoralised by Minister Roderic O’Gorman’s long overdue scheme. It has taken so long to get here.
“I think I’ve worked out I’d be entitled to around €12,500”.
Joyce suffers from eight chronic illnesses, including epilepsy, a heart condition and asthma and her consultant neurologist believes her ill health, in part, can be attributed to time spent in the Bethany home.
“Another aspect of the minister’s plan is enhanced medical coverage. No one knows what this means.
“It’s a disgrace. I have not applied for it; I am still considering it.”
Michael Grant was born in Sean Ross Abbey mother and baby home in Co Tipperary on October 27, 1949, to Rita from Co Louth.
At just four weeks old, on November 23, 1949, he was moved to Temple Hill in south Dublin.
Michael said this deprived him of vital bonding time with his mother.
He was adopted by a couple from Co Wicklow in September 1950 after they responded positively to an advert in a newspaper that said "good home wanted for baby Michael".
He said it was a “very successful adoption”. Michael later discovered his biological father was a man from Co Louth and when Rita discovered she was pregnant, he told her to tell nobody.
“As time went on, he became less interested and eventually left Rita,” said Michael. “Rita told nobody about her condition.”
Rita sought help from the nuns, who sent her to Sean Ross Abbey, at a cost to her of £100.
The has seen letters from the nuns to his mother, reminding Rita about their fees.
“The nuns contacted my father, who for his own reasons denied any involvement in my mother’s situation.”
Michael never got to meet his mother — she was killed in a road traffic accident in 1991. He has applied for the redress scheme, but his application was refused — if eligible, he could receive €12,500.
The Department of Children said Temple Hill in Blackrock in south Dublin where he was held was “not investigated by the Commission of Investigation because it operated primarily as a children's hospital rather than as an institution providing ante- and post-natal facilities.
“I feel I am being discriminated against,” said Michael. “My adoption is just as important as anybody's from the mother and baby homes. My mother was denied the opportunity to stay with her baby full-term until I was placed for adoption, she had no say, she didn’t even know where I was.
“If Temple Hill was a hospital, it should have records, and my mother should have known where I was.
The Department of Children said: “On page 29 in Chapter 2 of the social history section of the Commission of Investigation report, which details the different types of institutions that existed, Temple Hill was listed as a children’s hospital and, as such, did not meet the criteria of a mother and baby home
The commission referred to the institution as being “frequently wrongly described as a mother and baby home. It was an infants’ nursery and mothers were not resident there.
“As a hospital, it received funding from the Hospitals Commission. For this reason, it is not included in this payment scheme.”
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
