09-08-2025
'We meant nothing to the State. My mother was given the name Dolly, and her number was 2274'
John Duncan Morris knew who his birth mother was for many years, and that he had two sisters, but he waited until he was 54 years old before he made any approach 'for fear of causing upset'.
'I didn't want to hurt anyone and so I always held off, and I think that was the right thing" he explained.
'They were living their lives, and I didn't know if my sisters knew about me. It wasn't until my wife encouraged me to try and connect, that I started making those steps'.
The father of two, who lives in Scotland with his family, began gathering his paperwork under Freedom of Information more than a decade ago.
He learned he was born in Cork's Bessborough mother and baby home in 1967, before he was moved to St Joseph's home in Stamullen in Co Meath 90 days later.
John's mother, Kathleen Morris, who was from Cavan, did not marry his father and remained working for the nuns as a domestic in Cork for the next year before she moved back home. There, she kept her secret until she was 89 years old.
'On April 13, 1967, I was taken by a nun from Cork to Heuston station in Dublin, where a social worker took me to Stamullen in Meath,' John told the Irish Examiner.
John Duncan Morris as a child.
'After five years in Stamullen I was transferred to St Mary's in north Dublin, where I was described as mildly handicapped. I was there for two and a half years, and then I was boarded out to a family for nine years.
'I never called them mum and dad; I called them by their first names. I was never adopted. When I was 16 years old, I went to the Los Angeles boys' home in Blackrock, in South Dublin and I do have fond memories of that time," he said.
Despite being taken from his mother as an infant and moved around several care homes until he was in his late teens, John is not entitled to any redress under the mother and baby institution redress scheme.
The scheme, which opened to survivors of mother and baby homes in March of last year, is meant to offered redress for the time men and women spent in such institutions, and for the mental trauma so many of them experienced.
The act stipulates that anyone who was in a home for less than six months is not entitled to a payment, while children who were boarded or fostered out, are also excluded.
The Bessborough home in Cork is recognised under the scheme, however, John was only there for 90 days, and therefore does not meet the criteria for payment.
And even though he spent five years in St Joseph's home in Stamullen in Co Meath, it is not on the list of eligible homes — so John is not entitled to any redress for his time spent there either.
The €800m redress scheme — the largest of its kind — has been criticised for the fact it excludes people like John Duncan Morris and up to 34,000 other mother and baby home survivors — and campaigners say has only added to the trauma suffered by these people.
Last month, John and fellow survivor Maire Thornton — who are not known to each other — took the first High Court case against the State over these exclusions.
Last month, John, and fellow survivor Maire Thornton took the first High Court case against the State over exclusions from the mother and baby home redress scheme.
In a sitting in Dundalk Co Louth, counsel for Coleman Legal, which has 1,400 clients in similar circumstances, argued they should be included in the scheme and that children's minister Norma Foley — who is defending the action — has the discretion to add other homes to the eligible list.
Presiding judge Alexander Owens was told to exclude survivors from the scheme under these rules was 'in breach of the doctrine of reasonableness and is unfair and arbitrary'.
The plaintiffs want a review of the exercise of discretionary power according to 'settled principles of reasonableness'. Mark Harty SC and John Gordon SC for the plaintiffs, claimed the Government had acted unreliably in its establishment of a policy of refusing to provide redress to individuals from certain mother and baby institutions.
The hearing was centred on the wording of section 49 of the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Act 2022.
It states: 'The minister, with the consent of the minister for public expenditure, may by regulation provide for the insertion in column two of part one, or column two of part two, of schedule of any institutions which was established for the purpose of providing pregnant-related and infant care services and the placement of children for the purposes of adoption or care arrangements, and in respect of which a public body had a regulatory or inspection function'.
Senior counsel for the minister, Eileen Barrington SC, told the High Court the act states the homes that are eligible for the scheme were ones that provided pregnant-related and infant care — and that St Josephs and Temple Hill — where the second plaintiff Marie Thornton was placed, were for infant care only.
Justice Alexander Grant has reserved his judgement for a later date.
Speaking outside the court John said: 'We shouldn't be here fighting this, it's not about money, it is about the State recognising you.'
His sister, Sarah McCloskey, who met John for the first time four years ago, said: 'It is disgraceful it had to come to this. They are still forcing John into the courts, it is crazy, I can't believe they are doing that, and it's all based on what institution qualifies when it was a person who was affected.'
Ms McCloskey said she was 'delighted' when she learned she had an older brother in 2021. She had sat with her mother through films such as Philomena, based on Philomena Lee's search for her son, who was given up for adoption without her consent, and stories similar to her mother's own.
'But she never let on,' Ms McCloskey told the Irish Examiner.
'There was no indication whatsoever, except that she was very critical of the nuns and the church, she stopped going to mass and she didn't send us to religious schools.
'When we learned about John through a letter from Tusla, when he decided to reach out, we were absolutely delighted.
When I think of how lucky I was, I went to college in Dublin in 1989 and did my degree, and my sister went to Trinity — we were so privileged, and John was going through all this just because of the stigma of a baby out of wedlock. It was disgraceful.
Sarah said when her mother met John it was like 'a massive burden off her shoulders'.
'John doesn't share the same father as me and my sister, dad died when I was 17, so mam raised us on her own and did everything for us' she said.
John Duncan Morris with his mother Kathleen, who he met for the first time in October 2021 when she was 89 years old.
Sadly, that first meeting between John and his mother on October 14, 2021, was to be John's last — because Kathleen died in February 2022.
'I would have liked to get to know her more,' said John. 'But that meeting went really well, she could see a resemblance between me and her father'.
While Sarah said: 'It was 50 something years of holding this in, and then it all came out it was a great release for her.
'My mother thought he was adopted, but he never was, and she immediately went into mothering mode with him."
Sarah and John both admit they were nervous before the meeting at her home in Cavan. 'We sat and had tea and cakes, and we talked.
'But mam was absolutely delighted to meet you John, she put her arms around you.'
The plan was to meet again for their mother's 90th birthday the following April, but Kathleen's health declined, and she died, and John was 'honoured' to help carry her coffin at her funeral mass.
'Mum said she planned to leave a letter' said Sarah, 'But she hadn't the opportunity to tell us about that part of her life.
'The whole redress and what is happening in the court room, it's about the legality of things. And it's not just about the nuns, the Cavan social workers were involved too", she said.
While John added 'We meant nothing to the State. My mother was sent out to work for a year after I was born, she was given the name Dolly, and her number was 2274'.
'She was like a prisoner,' said Sarah. 'None of it is right and no survivor should be here fighting this.'
John's case was heard alongside Marie Thornton, who is now 71 years old, and is now a married mother of grown-up children.
She said she knows who her parents are, but that they 'were not allowed to get married'.
'And so, I ended up in Temple Hill,' she said.
Pointing to her left leg with her cane, she described how her two legs are different, 'this one [on the left] is very damaged because of three degree burns and I live in constant pain.'
This lifelong injury she has had to learn to live with, was referenced in her High Court action in Dundalk and Justice Owens was told the injuries were sustained while in the care home in Temple Hill.
'I was born in a private maternity hospital in 1954 and then one week later I was put into Temple Hill in Blackrock" said Marie.
'I was adopted, and the order shows I was adopted in 1958, four years later. I have records from my adoptive parents asking the nuns about my leg and how they were never given much information on how to deal with it.'
Ms Thornton is also excluded from the redress scheme because Temple Hill is not recognised in the list of eligible institutions under the scheme.
'It is totally unfair' she said.
'I am not here for money; I am here to stand up for myself and others".
Ms Thornton said her adoption was 'not a good one' and she spent decades trying to piece her life together.
"I was born in June, and in August the burns occurred and I ended up in Temple Street hospital.
'Obviously, a serious accident must have occurred but to this day I have no answers, I was never told, even though they have very limited information from the medical records from Temple Street, they do refer to the burns in my records'.
She said she tried since she was 18 years old to get her information but was told by the nuns she had 'no right' to it.
One nun was sitting with my very large file beside her and all she could say was, 'what do you want that for'.
'They did as they pleased and now the minister is refusing to take us on board. It's been a lifetime of fighting".
The latest figures from the Department of Children show:
6,641 applications have been made to date 58% via online portal, 42% via post;
4,523 general and work-related payments have been processed;
There have been applications from 25 countries. 83% from Ireland, 11% UK, 4% USA and 2% rest of world.
Norman Spicer with Coleman Legal told the Irish Examiner he was working with 1,400 survivors and
"It was appalling that the State had fought the survivors of these institutions who suffered at the hands of the religious orders and the State, in institutions which mirrored in every way, the circumstances that existed in institutions already qualifying for redress under the scheme".
Mr Spicer went on to say the State had an obligation to match action with words when it came to the apology given to survivors of the institutions in January 2021.
Commenting on a recent report compiled by the minister on the redress scheme, Mr Spicer said it was clear the numbers currently eligible to apply to the scheme fell well short of the expected 34,000 applicants envisaged when it was established.
Almost 18 months into the scheme's operation, only about 8% of the €800m budget had been spent on redress for survivors with about 6,600 applications made.
Mr Spicer argues to extend redress to these two institutions was not only the right thing to do but would clearly still keep the costs confined to the budget set previously by government.
A statement from Ms Foley's office said: 'As this case is still before the courts, we cannot provide a response at this time.'
