Colette Kelleher (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. Like many others, I am appalled and ashamed by the documented cruelty, neglected, abuse and sins of commission and omission regarding the person we have come to know as Grace. The Devine and Resilience Ireland reports published last week, which follow the Dignam report, set out in grave detail the failings in Grace's case and they make for difficult reading. Dehumanisation is at the heart of what the reports document and examine. There were serial and repeated failures to see Grace as a person like ourselves, an equal with rights, deserving to be heard, deserving of a good life and free from indignity fear and abuse, and a person who matters in this world. It is clear that, in the main, those who cared for, and were responsible for, Grace lost sight of her as a human being. In that process, they became dehumanised themselves, operating in a dehumanised and a dehumanising system.

Anyone like me who worked in these sometimes dehumanising systems, even at senior level, knows that courage is needed to do the right thing; that we must be open, individually and collectively, to reflect on what we did and did not do with and for the people in our care; that we need to be willing to put our hands up and willing to learn, take responsibility and be accountable for what we did and did not do; that we cannot rely on courage or reflection alone; and that we need the framework of law as well as honest, reflective, accountable people and organisations with moral cultures reflecting a moral society, protecting people such as Grace, directing people to do the right thing.

It would seem from the reports that everybody’s interests came before Grace's. These were fearful and insecure people who became insensitive and desensitised to even notice, empathise with, or care about a person obviously suffering, obviously vulnerable and obviously being wronged. It seems Grace and her life did not matter. Let us remember what we know about Grace's life from the reports and what has been reported. It is clear that there were warning signs as well as copious opportunities to act from the beginning in 1989, had people been willing, able or interested enough to see them or act upon them. Grace was born to a single mother in the south east of Ireland in the late 1970s. She was supposed to be put up for adoption. Instead, and as we know now notoriously, was put into foster care. She was born with microcephaly and she can communicate but not verbally, as the Minister of State said. For 20 years, from 1989 until 2009, Grace lived with a set of foster parents.

Many questions arise from the reports about these years of her life. Why did it not matter that the foster father, who died in 2000, was accused of sexually abusing another child in his care in 1996, at which point it was decided that no more children would be placed in that house, yet Grace continued to live there for another 13 years? Why did it not matter that Grace was put in a foster placement where there is no evidence that the foster parents were assessed under the Boarding Out of Children Regulations 1983 or that references were obtained? Why did it not matter that there was no evidence of a documented visit by the health board to determine the suitability of the home before Grace went to live there? In September 1989, the fact that Grace was not attending school was noted. Almost a year later, this had not changed. Why did Grace's schooling not matter? Why did Grace not have her legally required six-monthly reviews?

In 1992 and 1995, there were requests that Grace should move to a residential setting. Did she not matter enough for these to be considered? In May 1995, a psychological assessment noted that Grace had not progressed intellectually or in terms of self-care over the previous six years and that she should attend a day-care facility. Interestingly, her foster father objected saying, "There was nothing that could be done with her". In October 1995, it is noted that Grace was taking her clothes off at the day centre and when she got home in the evening for "no apparent reason", something that should have triggered concern and inquiry. Two days later, an incident report states:

While toileting Grace in the AM, large bruise noticed on left hip, appears tender to the touch. Bruises noticed also on the left elbow and right elbow just visible and not tender to touch. In good form.

Grace did not matter enough for the stripping off and the bruising noted in October to be followed up on.

In March 1996, the mother of a female service user claimed her daughter had been sexually molested while she had spent a week on in respite care at Grace’s foster home. There was no substantive investigation in respect of this sex abuse complaint. Neither she nor Grace, as a person still living in that setting, mattered enough for a substantive investigation to happen. Following this complaint, it was decided that Grace, now 17, would be placed at a residential facility for people with intellectual disabilities and the foster father was also told of the sexual abuse complaint made against him. In April 1996, the foster family were notified of their right to appeal the decision to remove Grace. The next day, at a case conference, where no minutes were taken, it was reported that the foster parents would appeal the decision to remove Grace and it was agreed to await the outcome of that process before proceeding with Grace's removal. Why would the appeal, the views of the foster carers and their lobbying of politicians delay her removal from the foster home? Why was all this allowed drag on for months and months, namely, from April until the next case conference took place in October? How was Grace all this time?

At the case conference in October 1996, astonishingly, it was noted, "There is no evidence that anything happened to Grace or that her wellbeing or welfare are not being met ...” but, at the same time, the conference was also told that neither the health board nor any intellectual disability service provider would be placing any other children in that home. In November 1996, the foster parents were told that Grace would be staying with them. Why was it okay for Grace to stay and not others? In 2000, the foster father died. In February 2001, during a home visit, the foster mother said she was relying on the income that she receives from looking after Grace and said she would like Grace to stay with her and her grandson until he turned 18 in 2006. Money mattered more than Grace. Six and a half years later, in September 2007, following a home visit, Grace was described as "uncared for". She "looked very unkempt, she had poor dental hygiene, her hair was dirty, she was dressed like an infant, her entire presentation was inappropriate". There was a lack of clarity about her sleeping arrangements. Why did Grace not matter enough for these concerns to be followed up yet again?

The catalogue of abuse and horror for Grace goes on - bruises, broken skin, red marks-----