|
|
Allegations
of Abuse in Institutions |
|
|
|
|
Wellington: A teenager
who had spent years in institutional care did not always understand the
“boundaries” of family life, a former foster father said in court yesterday. In the High Court at
Wellington, the man, whose name was suppressed, said he once turned off the
hot water when the teenager had been too long in the shower, and flicked her
hand with the flat side of a knife when she picked at meat as he was carving
a roast. The teenager is now 45
and is suing four Catholic organisations for $550,000 for emotional, verbal,
physical and sexual abuse she says she suffered while growing up. The defendants,
Wellington’s Roman Catholic Archdiocese, Catholic Social Services, the
Sisters of Mercy (Wellington) trust board, and St Joseph’s Orphanage trust
board, deny her claims on factual and legal grounds. She has been diagnosed
with a range of psychiatric and emotional problems. Her parents separated in
the 1960s when she was about 7. Her mother, who was given custody of the
seven children, put them into Catholic care. The court has heard she wanted
little to do with them. The man who gave
evidence yesterday said the claimant, whose name was also suppressed, came to
his home in 1977 after the boarding part of St Marys College closed. The move
reunited her with one of her sisters, who was one of eight children living in
the house. Cross-examined, he told
one of the claimant’s lawyers, Nicolette Levy, that he was not told
specifically of problems resulting from the claimant being institutionalised,
but he had a general idea of how she might cope. Her younger sister had
similar problems and so they were prepared for it, he said. He agreed he told her
that the needs of everyone in the family needed to be taken care of and she
was not more important than the others, but there were no slanging matches. The allowance paid for
state wards subsidised the care of the two sisters. Catholic Social Services
provided $15 a week for each girl, and chits to buy clothes. The witness and
his wife paid for presents and holidays and CSS paid for the claimant’s
driving lessons, new sports clothes, and a dress and tickets for a debutante
ball. She was happy while
staying with them but was demanding and did not always understand the sort of
boundaries that came with being in a large family. He denied shouting at
her or telling her she thought only of herself, or was selfish or lazy. He and his wife gave
her $1000 and paid other expenses when she returned to New Zealand in 2000.
They gave up their bed when she and her two sons came to stay for several
weeks, though she left after taking offence at what he said was a minor
issue. The case is continuing.
|
