The Jersey Care Inquiry: A damning Report
A fter 149 days of hearings and consultations and evidence from over 650 individuals, the greatly anticipated Jersey Care Inquiry Report has finally been published… and what a damning picture it portrays. The horrors of abuse are no longer abstract, the systematic and witting negligence of the legal, political, and administrative institutions are no longer excusable. Jersey failed its children throughout the 20th Century and it continues to fail them today.
Furthermore, as the Report explores, it is increasingly clear that changes to the systems involved in protecting children are not sufficient. Instead, it is inherently necessary for all members of society to turn their gaze inwards to truly understand the social interdependence which cultivated a culture of silence and left children in care with no voice and no spokesperson.
The Suffering
The Report paints a picture of Jersey’s care system as under-qualified, under-supported, under-scrutinised and improperly managed, with little value placed on the lives of the children within. Furthermore, it is clear throughout that when criticisms were raised and recommendations made, little heed was taken to effect change.
Considering the staff at ‘Haut de la Garenne’, the Report asserts that there are recurring examples of the overseeing political committee preferring to recruit inexperienced people from within the island over qualified outsiders, an issue which was compounded by a lack of staff training. Staff at ‘La Preference’ were described as “insufficiently skilled or trained” whilst ‘Les Chênes’ was run by teaching staff alone. This arguably resulted in the creation of improper conditions for children to grow up in. The harsh and un-nurturing atmosphere at ‘Sacre Coeur’, the fact that at ‘La Preference’, children were occasionally sleeping in the living room due to overcrowding, children were consistently failed. Furthermore, the experiences of childhood were deeply shaped by the use of detention rooms and secure accommodation, which were a part of multiple care establishments in Jersey, despite the fact that other Western nations only used such mechanisms as a means of last resort.
The Report also criticised the system for too quickly removing young offenders from their families without considering other forms of punishment and for denying home visits for children at ‘Les Chênes’, whilst the Family Group Homes were found to have paid insufficient attention to maintaining children’s links with members of their birth family, with some evidence that even such links were actively discouraged. With family ties disrupted, teenagers who then left the care system were described as being “abandoned without adequate aftercare to make their own way in the world”.
Unheard Voices
It is evident that the nature of the system itself effectively silenced children. By breaking familial bonds, there were few opportunities for children to voice their concerns to adults outside of the system. Within the system, the picture is even darker, with no evidence of a system for victims to report abuse existing until the 1990s. Furthermore, complaints procedures varied, with one procedure requiring the child to talk to the head of the home if they wanted to arrange to see an independent person. In instances where abuse was known to take place, such as allegations made to staff by girls at Les Hughes’ Family Care Home, or where staff at ‘Haut de la Garrenne’ were aware of children visiting the home of a nearby paedophile, no action was taken to involve the police.
Even where accusations of abuse were raised with the police, the legal system did little to support victims. From concern that certain Centeniers were unwilling to pursue cases of child abuse to a lack of witness protection and the requirement until 1997 that the evidence of a witness under fourteen be corroborated, the findings of the Report led to the assertion that “children in the care system in Jersey have been powerless for decades”.
Those Responsible
It is a heart-breaking reality that where there are vulnerable individuals, there may be others abusing their power. As a result, oversight and inspection are essential to ensure that children in care do not suffer at the hands of a system which ought to be protecting them. Yet, the Report details how there was a systematic failure to effectively scrutinise the establishments providing care for Jersey children. ‘Sacre Coeur’, for example, was established in 1901 and yet by 1958 was still being run without public supervision or inspection. Visits by child care officers to Family Group Homes were described as irregular, which was deemed to be “inexcusable and inexplicable” in an island the size of Jersey. In the instance of the Family Group Home run by the Maguires, the Report goes as far as to assert that the personal relationship between Jane Maguire and the senior care officer Brenda Chappell meant that the Maguires’ reports were received without criticism whilst they continued to carry out a reign of terror.
Even more striking is the evidence that when concerns were raised and recommendations made, they was seemingly no incentive at any level to instigate change. Indeed, despite the fact that there were significant allegations of abuse made between 1989 and 1991, there was no external inspection of Jersey’s children’s homes or children’s services between 1981 and 2001. Likewise, after evidence of abuse by the Maguires arose, Anton Skinner, former head of Children’s Services, failed to look into the failure of his staff, failed to prepare the in-depth report promised and failed to follow up on the Crown Advocate’s advise that a fixed complaints policy ought to be established. This was described by the Report as “inexplicable and inexcusable.”
Furthermore, State institutions which ought to have been ensuring that children were receiving the care they needed and pushing for reform are evidenced in the Report as having failed in their purpose. For example, the Children’s Sub-Committee was identified as having failed to carry out oversight or to lobby for greater importance to be accorded to Children’s Services, whilst the Education Committee failed to critically review the Children’s Services and ensure that children under their responsibility were adequately cared for. Similarly, politicians were found to have set policies without ensuring their implementation whilst the Children (Jersey) Law 1969 was passed over twenty years after its English counterpart, and the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 passed over ten years after its counterpart without justification. Indeed, the Report goes as far as to assert “we have found a worrying history of both inappropriate and ineffectual state intervention and state indifference”.
Why?
Responsibility for the welfare of children in Jersey rests on the shoulders of many. As a result, this should mean that where an element of the system fails, there are others who ought to ensure that this failure is identified and reformed. Therefore, it is shocking that in Jersey children were neglected for such a long period of time unchallenged and unchanged.
The harsh truth uncovered by the Report is not that the system failed but that society, as a whole, failed.
The Howard League, a UK charity working for less crime, safer communities and fewer people in prison, has described how, in Jersey, “powerful interlocking networks may exclude and disempower those outside of the groups and make it hard for those outside of those networks who have genuine concerns to raise them or make complaints in an effective way”. This was asserted as being “likely to be particularly true of deprived, disadvantaged and powerless children”. Furthermore, it is arguable that ego, interdependence and a protectionist attitude paved the way for decades of unnecessary suffering.
Evidence raised in the Report includes the statement of Paul Le Claire, who asserted that it was deemed inappropriate to speak out of harmony with other Health & Social Services committee members and that the minute-taker would be asked not to record controversial points. Furthermore, it was suggested that Haute de la Garenne staff members who received staff accommodation subsequently lacked the incentive to speak out. Likewise, the Report identified that there was often a lack of understanding about what the role of scrutiny committees should have entailed and what oversight actually meant. The evidence presented is not just evidence of a problem with the system, it is identified as evidence of a problem with society, which was described as being “patrician and hierarchical” whereby “children in care were marginalised”. Throughout the report, it is evident that little was done to challenge the system because there was no incentive. The local population never called for reforms and neither did those working in the system who had the power to effect such changes. Indeed, the Polish saying, ‘not my circus, not my monkeys’ seems harrowingly accurate in many instances of social, political and administrative negligence in relation to children under the care of the State.
Tragically, the Report asserts that children remain at risk in Jersey to this day. Yet, it is evident that an overhaul of the system alone will not be sufficient. It is clear from the Report that it will take the efforts of everyone to ensure that children across Jersey are provided with the care they need. Everyone will have to ask the question ‘what are our values?’ and will have to recognise that if we care, we cannot continue to allow vulnerable children to be at the mercy of a system and a society wrought with interdependence and an aversion to challenge and introspection. The Report is clear, it is time for change.
