Sarah Shaughnessy was ten years old when she gave evidence and allowed herself to be subjected to cross-examination in the trial of William and Margaret Roche at Castlebar Petty Sessions on 14 June 1916. The case is remarkable for Sarah's courage and the insights it gives us into the system of boarding out workhouse children.
Sarah was a resident of Castlebar Workhouse. In November 1915, the Castlebar Union Board of Guardians made an order to board her out. The Roches were farmers and received three shillings per week for taking Sarah.
In June 1916, Sergeant Brady went to the Roche home at Ballygorman, Ballyvary, to check on Sarah following a complaint. As he approached the house, he saw Sarah in a field picking large stones and putting them in a bucket. She was lame and unable to carry the bucket, so she dragged it after her. Barefooted and wearing an old, tattered dress, there were marks on her face, hands, and body. Concerned, Brady took her away with him.
At Castlebar Courthouse (Photograph: Jim O'Connor ), Sarah testified that the Roches beat her regularly with a belt. When an item was broken in the home, she was blamed and beaten with a rod and kicked. Margaret Roche also stripped her and beat her with a rod. She was treated differently from the Roche children. Margaret Roche visited her in the workhouse and told her to swear in court that a fence fell on her. William Roche told her he would kill her if she told anyone they beat her. T. H. Gillespie committed him to Castlebar Prison on remand.
Workhouse medical officer J. J. Hopkins found Sarah to be very frightened. Blue marks on her back and forearm were consistent with a 'good hiding'. Margaret Roche admitted striking Sarah with a 'small twig' when the child 'needed chastisement'. William Roche denied everything.
The magistrates accepted that Sarah was severely beaten and acknowledged that the sentences available to them were insufficient. William Roche was convicted of wilfully assaulting and ill-treating Sarah for over six months. He was fined twenty shillings. His wife was acquitted.
Board of guardian discussions in Mayo concerning boarded-out children were dominated by value-for-money considerations. Those who applied to take children tendered the amount they expected to receive in payment. Guardians pushed for acceptance of the lowest tenders to protect the ratepayer. The work of Anne Fitzgerald-Kenney at that time was pioneering. Kenney was an inspector of boarded-out children. In 1911, she pleaded with the Westport Guardians not to return to 'baby farming' days by boarding children out to those who accepted 'starvation pay'. The lowest or highest bid was not relevant. The issue was whether the applicants were suitable foster parents. Fitzgerald-Kenney consistently faced opposition from male-dominated boards whose membership undoubtedly considered her presence at the table a complete anathema.
A review of pre-independence court records and the Castlebar prison register revealed other cases like Sarah's case. For decades after independence, a succession of governments and local authorities embraced boarding out as an alternative to retaining children in institutions. The Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation Final Report (2021 ) (Chapter 11, 'Boarding Out' ) highlights many examples of gross neglect, terrible exploitation, and appalling abuse over many decades in Mayo and elsewhere. If this chapter tells us anything, it is that the boarding out system served interests other than those of the children involved.
A recurring theme in the chapter is the suitability of foster parents. County Mayo examples include fostering young children to elderly or severely disabled people. In the 1940s, Mayo had some of the worst conditions for boarded-out children. One report referenced in the chapter noted that due to a shortage of labour in Mayo caused by emigration, foster children were seen as a source of physical and domestic labour and income in middle-class households.
Despite an acknowledgement by the Taoiseach of the terrible exploitation and abuse suffered by boarded-out children, survivors have been cruelly locked out of the redress scheme offered to others who suffered at the hands of the state and its agents. The silence in society more generally on the issue of boarded-out children is deafening and must be challenged.
