Farm of fear

Between 1922 and 1967 up to 10,000 children migrated from Britain to Australia under officially-approved schemes. While some remember the experience fondly, others became victims of beatings and sexual abuse. And newly-discovered records show that the authorities had been warned that the system had few safeguards.

By Sanchia Berg

October 2, 2009 / Today programme, Radio 4

Jackie still remembers the day she arrived at Fairbridge Farm, Pinjarra, Western Australia in 1950.

Like the other children, she'd been kitted out with a complete new outfit for the trip: shirt, cardigan, skirt, shoes and socks. Pictured just before she got on the boat, she even has a ribbon in her hair.  

The month long voyage was "great fun", she recalled. But as soon as Jackie, then ten, arrived at Fairbridge Farm, her beautiful new clothes were taken away.

Everyone had to wear a t-shirt and shorts. No shoes - they were only for church on Sundays.  

"We all got stone bruises," she said. "That's what we called them - the bumps on your feet from going barefoot everywhere."

But that wasn't the worst thing - by far. "The punishment was shocking," Jackie added.

Fairbridge Farm was supposed to have more of a family atmosphere than most children's homes of the time - instead of big dormitories the children lived in cottages with a resident member of staff - a "cottage mother".

Some children seem to have been fond of their substitute parents, and have good memories of the Farm, but Jackie's cottage mother was cruel.

Lonely and scared, Jackie started wetting her bed at night. The cottage mother would force her head into the toilet - and then flush it or lock her into a dark cupboard under the stairs.

Jackie tried to run away - but she was always brought back. "There was no-one to turn to," she told me.

Grossly overcrowded

Jackie was disgusted to learn that the Home Office had been specifically warned about the Farm three years before she arrived but had still sent children there.  

I found a file in the National Archives from 1947 - released in recent years - showing a Miss Lucy Cole Hamilton wrote to officials in October that year.

She herself had worked as a cottage mother at Fairbridge Farm, Pinjarra, for 11 years. She'd taken a party of children there in 1934 and stayed through the war.

She'd read reports that the government planned to start sending child migrants to Australia again, and she was "very anxious" for information about safeguards and inspection.

"I do not think the system at present conducive to the children's happiness or welfare in a great many ways," she wrote.  

Officials invited Miss Cole Hamilton up to London, and she gave more details. The facilities were poor, she said, and cottages "grossly overcrowded... 24 children living where at most there was space for 12".

She was very worried about the way children were treated, and about their education. "Very few children went out to school. Girls went automatically to domestic service, boys to farming," she told them.

The staff were on the whole "of low quality". She felt that supervision from "this side" was "very necessary".

The file makes clear that officials had already heard poor reports of the Farm. They noted "what she told us... confirmed our existing information".

And yet, they apparently did nothing. The final sentence runs: "Note: it would not be desirable to use of the information given here as 'evidence' in any discussion with the Fairbridge Society". The society was the UK based charity responsible for the School. The last comment is simply "lay by".

Yet, according to Jackie and other former child migrants, Miss Cole Hamilton had identified the key problems in the system.

"I'm nothing"

Bill was sent to Bindoon, a farm in Western Australia run by the Christian Brothers, in 1954. He was just nine years-old. He describes it as a "hellhole".  

Bindoon is now notorious for the many allegations of horrific abuse: a Committee of British MPs heard evidence from one man who said Brothers there had competed to see who could rape him a hundred times.

Bill himself was raped there. He'd been a good student in England. At Bindoon, his education was negligible, and ceased altogether when he was 11.

"I could have been anything," he told me. "I could have been the prime minister. But I'm nothing, I've got nothing, because I haven't been educated."

Lucy Cole Hamilton had stressed the necessity of supervision from the UK, but the files show inspection was limited.

Bindoon was visited in 1951 by John Moss, a British official, but he gave it a good report. He even relayed the senior Brother's request for younger boys: "He prefers boys of nine or 10," Bindoon wrote.

Bill finds it hard to understand how an inspector could have so misread the Home.

In later years, there were more warnings about the Home, but Lucy Cole-Hamilton does seem to be the first to make a serious attempt to blow the whistle, according to Margaret Humphreys of the Child Migrants' Trust.

She was struck by the level of detail in the file.

"This is just clear evidence... Evidence of someone concerned about the appalling level of care, evidence of someone raising the alarm, and the government does nothing about it as far as we can see," she says.

The Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has said he will apologise for the policy. But, as this file underlines, it was Britain who sent the children out, and failed to monitor them effectively.

Many former migrants believe Britain should say sorry too, and offer compensation. Jackie still has a British passport: she calls England "home".

"It's my country," she told me. "They didn't look after us then but they should look after us now."

Fairbridge was reconstituted as a charity in 1992 and now does well-respected work getting young people into education, employment and training in the UK.

0

It seems to be an ongoing theme

Bindoon was visited in 1951 by John Moss, a British official, but he gave it a good report. He even relayed the senior Brother's request for younger boys: "He prefers boys of nine or 10," Bindoon wrote.

Bill finds it hard to understand how an inspector could have so misread the Home.

In later years, there were more warnings about the Home, but Lucy Cole-Hamilton does seem to be the first to make a serious attempt to blow the whistle, according to Margaret Humphreys of the Child Migrants' Trust.

She was struck by the level of detail in the file.

"This is just clear evidence... Evidence of someone concerned about the appalling level of care, evidence of someone raising the alarm, and the government does nothing about it as far as we can see," she says.

The Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has said he will apologise for the policy. But, as this file underlines, it was Britain who sent the children out, and failed to monitor them effectively.

Many former migrants believe Britain should say sorry too, and offer compensation.

Many decades later, more countries are sending their "poor, unwanted" children to far-away lands with the understanding each child will be given a better life and a good education.  How many of these countries monitor the status and well-being of the children that are sent away?  How often and how comprehensive is this monitoring being done?  How many countries have sent "orphan" children to live in homes where child abuse was actively taking place, and how many sending (and receiving) countries really care?

Although child migration, as a formal practice, has ended, children are still being sent away with a government's approval, a private agency's blessing, and the promise of a much better life, through adoption.  In many cases the children placed in foreign homes are well cared-for and loved.  However, not all children sent away end-up being loved, or lucky, for that matter.  Many times the foreign child is placed in a home where it takes some time for the adult-in-control to show his/her true colors.  In some cases, that may take years... in some cases, various forms of child abuse become an instant standard way of living.  Within our abuse pages, we feature many cases in which the poor treatment of an adoptee began very soon after placement; in other cases, abuse/neglect did not manifest itself for years.  In some cases abuse was reported and dismissed; in other cases, reports of abuse never took place.

The following is an example how modern-day monitoring and investigation, within child placement services, can and does take place between two countries

the evidence shows that Jeannene Smith, the founder of an adoption agency called Reaching Out Thru International Adoption, was the placement agency for Mancuso’s adoption of Masha. Mrs. Smith attempted to mislead committee staff about her role in Masha’s adoption and withheld documents in an attempt to minimize her role. I believe the reason she sought to minimize her role is because with that role came certain responsibilities. Ms. Smith did not live up to those responsibilities and as a result, Masha was left in the hands of a pedophile for many years. The primary responsibility that I am referring to is one that Masha rhetorically asked the committee in her testimony when she was here and she said, “Why didn’t anyone ever come to check on me?”

No one came to check on Masha because Ms. Smith’s agency, the agency responsible for the placement of the child, never told the home study agency that Mancuso had a child placed in his home, so the home study agency never followed up. Mrs. Smith also, in my view, shirked her responsibility to obtain three post-placement reports required by the Russian government, from Mancuso. These reports required exactly what Masha asked about; a licensed social worker to come see her at Mancuso’s home; to see how she was doing and progressing; and to talk to her.

Instead of, at a minimum, calling a licensed post-placement agency in Pennsylvania, which is where Mancuso and Masha were living, and asking them to contact Mancuso and set up a meeting, she went ahead and had one of her social workers call Mancuso and write a report based on a phone call. This report was then sent to the Russian authorities as an official post-placement report. Notably, nowhere in the report does it say it was based on a phone call. It is my understanding that a telephonic post-placement report is almost worthless and more importantly, a social worker can only do a post-placement report in the State in which they were licensed.

[Comment made by Congressman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) at the 1997 Congressional Hearing:  Sexual Exploitation of Children over the Internet  ] 

There is a generation of adult-survivors seeking an apology and a measure of "fair compensation" for being put in poor care, and then forgotten by the government.  To date, how many victims would qualify for this suggested resolution?  Scary to imagine, isn't it?

Pound Pup Legacy