Nobody resigns, even for a horrific case like this

There is not a twinge of embarrassment on the part of the government about the criminal neglect of one of its agencies responsible for the care of children, writes Vincent Browne. 

The Health Service Executive (HSE) flagrantly neglected the care and protection of six children who were obviously endangered in a dysfunctional home.

Mary Harney, the Minister for Health and Children, has not bothered to even make a statement about the revelations of delinquency by an agency for which she is responsible.

Her little helper, Barry Andrews (pictured), just bleats about what is about to happen now to protect children, as though we haven't known for decades what was required.

The idea that one or both of them would resign because of the culpability of the agency over which they had control is, of course, absurd.

Irish government ministers don't resign, unless someone paints their sitting room for nothing or they become too much of an embarrassment.

And forfeiting the wellbeing of children is not an embarrassment in our political culture.

At least we have the satisfaction of knowing that neither of these two will be a cause of further annoyance to us after the next election. In the case of Harney, this is a considerable relief, given the ethos she brought to the regulatory agencies, the management of our economy and society, and the damage all that did.

As the minister in charge, Harney, and Andrews as well, should surely have arranged that everyone involved in the care of children would have known the relevant guidelines, would have been alerted to the danger signals and would have had some idea of the laws governing this area, and not have been spooked by an ex-parte High Court injunction.

(Isn't there something almost contemptuous about the fact that the language of the legal system is laced with Latin, hardly a language much used among the Irish citizenry?)

If the Department of Health and Children - especially the bit of it to do with children - has no function at all to care for people under its care, what is the point of it? And if the Minister for Health and Children and her helper have no function in this either, what is the point of them?

Just look at the bare facts of the Roscommon case. In 1989, the Western Health Board got to hear about the family that has been at the centre of the childcare inquiry.

A neighbour expressed concern to the board about alcohol consumption by the parents who had just had their first child.

Around the same time, a relative expressed concern about the care of the new baby, in particular about a severe and untreated nappy rash. In 1990,the mother told social workers she had drunk seven vodkas the evening before the birth and had not realised she was in labour.

By 1996,therewere four children, an d the social workers' records mention a continuing problem with hygiene. By December of 1996, the parents were resisting spending money on food, rather than alcohol.

The following February, a locum social worker noted on a visit that no food had been prepared for the children, the baby's clothing was soiled, and dermatitis was evident on the baby's head and neck.

In February 1998, it was noted that the parents had ongoing problems with alcohol.

There was also a problem with a fire-setting incident involving one of the children and a young child being sent to the local town to collect the shopping, which included a significant amount of alcohol.

For several months in 1999, no social worker was allotted to the family. There were more complaints from neighbours and relatives that same year.

In February 2000, there were further alarming complaints about the neglect of children, alcohol consumption and again of ''inappropriate behaviour'' by the mother and related neglect of children.

In October 2000,there was a proposal for a shared parenting arrangement, whereby the children would be part-fostered.

There was initial agreement to this, but then the parents obtained an ex parte court order (apologies for the Latin) from the High Court restraining the board from removing the children from the parents' custody, pending a further order of the court.

There were reports of the mother being seen in a public place having intimate sexual relations with a man. The board then decided to apply for a supervision order, but backed off.

On and on it went until one of the children revealed that, aside from this astonishing neglect, there was sexual abuse of an astounding scale going on as well.

But there is not a trace of embarrassment on behalf of anybody in the government over this.

They probably think it was the collapse of Lehman Brothers that allowed it all to happen.