ORPHANAGES WITHOUT ORPHANS

New Zealand Listener, Volume 19, Issue 486, 15 October 1948, Page 22

ORPHANAGES WITHOUT ORPHANS

Mrs. Mirams Auswers Her Critics

HE mildness of the reaction to my article has been a sur- . prise. I had steeled myself to meet a storm of indignation (that was the weather forecast) and while it raged to keep my | eyes fixed on the future. Perhaps the reason for this friendly response is that we are all really on the same side. We are all on the side of the children. I agree that I left out many important matters, but the article was too long as it was and my aim was merely to paint the picture as I see it to-day and not to write the history of institutions for children in New Zealand as some correspondents seemed to imagine. Mr. Mathew’s book is, of coutse, an ole friend; my own copy has been well thumbed and marked, but with rare exceptions I have never been able to persuade those directly concerned to tead books of this nature (Dr. Winterbourn’s book on backward children is another instance). They are simply not interested. Barking Title Was Necessdry I used the term "Orphanage" in the title because that is what most people think they are, and a title must be intelligible at a glance. If a misnomer dies hard, the authorities themselves are to blame for using an obsolete term long after it applies, As a matte, of fact I was rather pleased with the title; it barked, and that is what a title should do. \ | I have been taken to task because. I did not mention inspection by the Welfare Department; but why. should I? Except perhaps to say that it does not appear to me to probe very deeply. But no doubt it goes as far as the regulations require it to go. Another correspondent asserts that the article is based on the Curtis report. This is incorrect: it is based (1) on my own observations and deductions (2) on a fairly wide knowledge of institutions over the greater part of New Zealand, and (3) on my friendship with a large number of the children themselves, both while in the

ps20mes ana aelterwaras, and, this is how illumination comes. Without telling you anything they tell you everything. "A Hard Thing" And now I am going to say a hard thing, but I must say it. The opinion of anyone not in close touch with the children themselves is worthless. Like a doctor without clinical experience: and often those who are most dogmatic are the ones who have no first hand knowledge whatsoever. This applies with equal force to members of committees. Congratulations to the O.P.S.S.A. for allowing no corporal punishment,

I wonder how many institutions can claim that. I regard Canon Acheson’s letter as one of the most constructive of those published. He has obviously given the subject much thought in the widest sense, and his scheme might well be the pattern for future action. One writer says that if the children feel inferior it must be the fault of the public. Whose fault it. is, is beside the point; the important thing is that they do feel it, and often suffer under it very severely. Several writers have challenged my interpretation of the David Wills quotation. Let us take an example. If a father, or even a mother dies, the child has not yet suffered the major disaster; but should the home be broken up and the child put in an institution he is then uprooted, his emotional ties ‘are bruised and torn, and he becomes a casualty. I am’ not going to be beaten on the highlight of the article! I cannot agree that a child’s need for security is met in an institution. He still has no background, or at best an unhappy one, and he later enters a cold world as an isolated unit. 4 Good Motives Not Enough It is true that churches started voluntary Homes in this country, and with the best motives, but the dismal fact is that good motives ate no safeguard. Some of the worst deeds in history have been committed with admirable motives. One official says that parents resented being questioned, another that some parents have to be told that the / Homes are not there to relieve them" of their responsibilities, Exactly; there is a great temptation for some parents to use the Homes as dumping grounds: sometimes they get away with it, and that is why I emphasised the great importance of vigilant admission committees. I rejoice that some of Mr. McEldowney’s boys have rallied round to defend their Home. He deserves ~ (continued on next page)

(continued from ptevious page) this. I have a great admiration-for the way he runs the three Homes under his care. Little comment has been made on what one authority calls "the almost inhuman practice" of tearing brothers and sisters apart. This is one of the worst features of most New Zealand Institutions. The suggestion of ‘"Pegasus" that a research council be set up is a most important one and I hope it will be considered. His grand finale gives me great satisfaction. Dennis McEldowney says most of the points rasied by mé@ were covered in Mr. Mathew’s book, but there is nothing in the book regarding punishment and humiliation for behaviour symptoms, and it is significant that he was conscious at times of a lack of frankness when making his investigations. The angle of my approach, too, is completely different. t, Adoptions . Regarding large institutions, one way of keeping numbers down is by encouraging adoption. My experience is that with few exceptions the voluntary organisations are against it. When it is remémbered that many of these children are illegitimate, and are admitted from the age of three years, this reluctance seems _ deplorable. Another method, is boarding children in the homes of ‘parishioners. One third of the Barnardo children are boarded out. I-=see no reason why orphans should be admitted into institutions. They have relations like other children, and if these were encouraged to take them, the children would be gathered into their own family circle; and aunts and uncles can be very;dear. By methods such as these, institutions as we know them to-day could be abolished altogether and what a relief that would be. There is one vital matter I want to touch on which deeply concerns many of these children; illegitimacy. Could we have a more distressing proof of callous indifference to children’s feelings than that .we tolerate this cruel stain’ on completely innocent children? Custom is at the root of this lethargywe can get used to anything (if we are not the yictims). | Insurmountable

difficulties? Difficulties yes, but notinsurmountable, and unless we bring difficulties’ and details into line with principles, there is chaos. Cottage Homes Several people have asked me what I mean by Cottage Homes. I do not mean a group of cottages in the same grounds, for this is only an institution on another plan. I have in mind bungalows in pretty grounds and in different suburbs, with not more than 12 children of all ages and both sexes, and when the need arises, taking even 4 baby (if it is to be like a real home). And what a fuss the children would make of it, the boys, too, and what an interest for them all. There should be a married couple in charge as substitute parents, and by this method classification would be possible. The parishes concerned would, of course, count it their privilege to act as foster aunts and uncles, and as big brothers and sisters to the children and country parishioners would invite them for the holidays. And if this is not religion I don’t know what is.) . But the question of home-deprived children and their treatment is only one symptom of a social malady whose roots go far down into systems of education, but that is too big a question to discuss here. But to any who have been moved to a deeper insight into the needs of children I would say: let them express their feelings in warmer manner than by giving an annual subscription. Would money be enough to give their own children? Let us be able to say that although there are stiil homeless children there are no more friendless ones: And don’t let anyone be too sure that nothing I have said can possibly apply to his particular institution. That is what I mean by complacency. j The only shadow over this controversy so far as 1 am concerned has been the hurt feelings of worthy people. I do regret this, specially as I know well the many hours of voluntary work given so willingly by committees. But the very fact that they do this for ‘one special Home prewents. them perhaps ‘from seeing the picture as a whole. We must think only of the childr2n’s feelings and bear the wounds of battle ourselves, remembering that they are honourable wounds received in trying to add to the happiness of some thousands of children,