St Vincent's Industrial School, Goldenbridge

In 1855, Cardinal Paul Cullen invited the Sisters of Mercy to provide a rehabilitation service to women who had been incarcerated in Mountjoy Prison, by educating them and preparing them for final release.

These crimes fell into the categories of homelessness, wandering, destitution, begging, lack of proper guardianship, and non-attendance at school.

In March 1941, Dr. McCabe carried out a general inspection and found that the School was ‘well kept’ and satisfactory in all areas.

[7] The General Inspection Reports of the 1940s criticised the food and diet of the children; in particular, insufficient quantities of milk and butter were given during the war years.

The Department of Education had allotted certain rations of milk and butter for children in industrial schools, and these quantities were not adhered to in Goldenbridge.

The General Inspection Reports after Dr McCabe's retirement continued to be very favourable about the living conditions in the School.

However, Mr Granville was concerned about the lack of qualifications of the staff and the change in the type of child that was being admitted.

[11] In 2004 Sr. Breege O' Neill give a clarified apology on behalf of herself and the Sisters of Mercy nuns, as survivors had felt it was incomplete and conditional.

She asked for forgiveness for the congregation and for the failures to hear concerns, for the physical and emotional suffering, and took responsibility for the sisters who had failed.

[12] In 2006, at the investigation committee for the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, Sister Helen O'Donoghue, provincial superior, denied "any deliberate, severe injury to anybody" at St. Vincent's She felt that Goldenbridge had been "vilified" in the media and she hoped an examination would be made by a competent authority.

The actual management of the Industrial School was left to two nuns – the Sister-in-Charge and, from 1942 onwards, her assistant.

...No professional training was available to provide understanding or direction to service organisation or therapeutic interventions.

The regime became kinder and more child-centred in the late 1960s and the number of complainants was small, which suggests that even though Goldenbridge was still a large, crowded institution, better management could have an important bearing on the quality of life of the children.

In the early 40s the day-to-day operation of the School and the care of the children were left to two untrained lay teachers.

[17] Among the Commissions findings was that during the 1940s Goldenbridge was both over-crowded and understaffed, however defects in the management of the School were not observed by official inspectors.

[18] Abuse by the largely unsupervised lay staff became a major feature of life in Goldenbridge in the 1950s and 1960s.

Allegations of corporal punishment made against both Sisters and lay teachers appear to be correct in many instances.

From the late 1950s, children who showed academic ability were given the opportunity of pursuing post primary education because of a scholarship fund set up by the Archbishop of Dublin.

In addition to the normal national school curriculum, children aged 13 and over participated in a domestic economy training module overseen by the Department of Education.

[27] At some time in the early 1950s or the late 1940s, Sr Alida was approached by a businessman who suggested that the Institution could become involved in making rosary beads.

[29] [30] The commission remarked that the conditions children worked under caused stress and anxiety and would not have been tolerated in factories.

The commission also noted that the bead-making deprived children of recreation that was essential for social, emotional and psychological growth.

He inspected the main meal of the day, which consisted of soup, milk, mincemeat, vegetables, custard and tinned pears, and he found that the amounts served were ample and well cooked.