Malta is the only EU member state that dumps its responsibilities towards abandoned children on volunteers, just as it does with abandoned dogs

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve written about this subject, but because of a strong letter published in The Times today, and written by a nun calling on the government to begin doing its duty, I feel I am left with no choice but to repeat the same arguments I have made consistently over the years. The letter is below, but please first read what I have to say.

Malta is not a true welfare state. The situation in Malta remains basically that of the Victorian era, in which nuns and priests care unaided for homeless children, the seriously handicapped and the elderly and infirm in buildings paid for by individual acts of private charity. The system of retirement pensions, sickness benefits and hand-outs to those who cannot work has been overlaid over this largely-intact Victorian ‘structure’.

Malta is the only member state of the European Union which has avoided right into the 21st century taking up its duty and obligations towards children who cannot be looked after by their own parents. The Maltese state has taken up only partially its obligations towards the elderly who have nobody else to care for them, but even here it relies heavily on priests and nuns. At least, though, it is doing part of its duty.

Where children are concerned, the Maltese state continues to take it for granted that as long as priests and nuns are doing a good job, then it shouldn’t rock the boat. And here I must say something to the government – in capital letters, which is tantamount to shouting, but that is the only way some messages stand a chance of getting through:

PRIESTS AND NUNS BEGAN TO CARE FOR CHILDREN DUMPED IN THE STREETS AS AN ACT OF CHARITY, SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS AGO, WHEN THE CONCEPT OF THE WELFARE STATE DID NOT EXIST AND WHEN PEOPLE STARVED IN THE STREETS AND THE DISEASE-RIDDEN LAY IN THE GUTTER. AT THE START OF THE 20TH CENTURY AND AS THE CONCEPT OF THE MODERN WELFARE STATE EVOLVED, CARE FOR ABANDONED CHILDREN CAME TO BE SEEN NOT AS A VOLUNTARY ACT BY RELIGIOUS ORDERS SUBSIDISED BY THE CHARITY OF THE WEALTHY FEW BUT AS THE DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE, FINANCED BY THE TAXES OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION.

One of the main reasons that governments across Europe introduced income tax during the first half of the 20th century was not the financing of wars or the building of roads and schools – though of course, those too. It was so that they could take on responsibility towards those who had nobody else to care for them. The harsh ‘survival of the fittest and richest’ principle that had motivated human societies throughout history finally began to evolve, in the early 20th century, into the concept of a society in which those who couldn’t take care of themselves were taken care of collectively by the rest through their taxes.

Yet Malta remains in the Victorian era. Abandoned children remain the responsibility of priests and nuns, and 20th-century government after 20th-century government did nothing to change things, continuing to abuse of the goodwill and sense of responsibility of these religious orders. Now we are in the 21st century and the government appears to believe it can carry on treating stray children like stray curs: the latter are picked up Freddie Fenech and the former are picked up by the Ursuline Sisters and other volunteers. Sr Jacqueline Jones’ letter explains clearly the kind of pressures these nuns and priests are under. She points out, politely, that (in a modern welfare state) abandoned children, homeless children, and children who have been taken from their irresponsible parents are not the responsibility of religious orders but the responsibility of the government, by which she means the state, the government being the embodiment of the state.

It is one thing having abandoned dogs and strays left to the goodwill of volunteers, but to do this with children? I continue to be shocked and appalled at the situation, and I am glad that Sr Jones has finally written about it, and that Fr Zammit McKeon has commented in a similar vein beneath the on-line version of her letter. Abandoned children are the responsibility of the state, not the responsibility of volunteers. Those volunteers may be priests and nuns but they remain volunteers.

The situation is not ideal for the priests and nuns who, as Sr Jones points out, are overburdened and exhausted. But it is not ideal for the children, either. Sr Jones is calling for more assistance paid for by the government, but really what needs to be done is a complete overhaul of the Victorian structure for children in care. The one good thing to come out of this mess is that we can assess the mistakes made by other states and avoid making the same ones, going straight to the latest and so far most successful model, used in many parts of Germany, in which around five children of different ages are looked after by a ‘home mother’ in a flat, doing away with large and impersonal institutions all together.

The Times, Wednesday, 31st December 2008
Children’s homes’ carers in need of care

Sr Jacqueline Jones (sja), counselling psychologist, Dar Sagra Familja, Żabbar

Frank Muscat’s Talking Point in The Times of Saturday, December 27, is, once again an attempt at raising the national conscience regarding the plight of children in care including that of their carers. I beg to draw particular attention to the conditions under which the religious staff, in particular, are expected to carry out their responsibilities.

I speak as both an outsider and an insider to this situation since I am both a religious sister living in a community that cares for these children and a counselling psychologist working in several homes attending to both the children’s and carers’ emotional and social needs.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the sisters deliver their duties with much love and genuine care for the children. What concerns me is the conditions under which they are obliged to continue their 24/7 care and ongoing tasks.

These sisters have no time off or days off duty that would help them reenergise for the week’s work. Some of them can’t even afford to take their annual holidays simply because they can’t be replaced.

When the children are sick during the night and have to be taken to hospital or to the clinic, the next morning they have to be up as usual and prepare their charges for school, SAV visits, meetings with social workers etc. Several of these children are still very young so broken nights for the sisters are the norm as many parents of young children would testify.

There is a hint in the article that we’re looking for a “pay rise”. What we need is increased paid staff to help us run our homes.

Many times I tried to set up a roster so the sisters can have some personal time off duty and a day off a week. This has been impossible because there is no staff to take their place. Employees must be paid. This is where we most need government assistance and a sense of responsibility towards children in care.

While I acknowledge the generosity of the Maltese community in supporting these homes, the ultimate responsibility must rest with the government. It is to our political leaders that we look for fairness regarding all, including religious staff who also happen to be ordinary human beings like the rest of us.

In addition to their work, these sisters have responsibilities towards their own families, aging parents, and their own religious community as well as a responsibility to maintain their own professional and religious development. Currently they have little or no time to attend to these demands at the detriment of their own sense of balance and life satisfaction.

Above all they also have the supreme task of giving the children entrusted to them the love and time they need to help assuage in some ways the emotional trauma inflicted on them by the very fact that they must live away from their family. This can’t be done if the carer herself is tired or emotionally drained.

Like all of us, religious staff too need to move away from their work at regular intervals and return refreshed to give their best to the children in their care. This aim can only be achieved if the current staff-children ratio is raised to a more reasonable standard.

It would be grossly unfair on the part of any government, at a time when the cost of living obligates both parents to seek employment, to continue putting the onus on volunteers and charitable donations to ensure effective running of children’s homes.