A man was denied an emergency safety order he had sought against a woman with whom he had an “extramarital relationship” by a court on Thursday.
Dublin District Family Court heard that the relationship between the pair lasted for a year and the man broke it off in recent months.
“Since then she has been emotionally abusing me, threatening me and my family, stalking me and my family,” said the man in a sworn statement.
He said the woman had approached him, his wife and adult daughter and threatened them on separate occasions, while also telling his daughter that “she wants to ruin my life like I have ruined hers”.
Housing in Ireland is among the most expensive and most affordable in the EU. How does that happen?
Ceann comhairle election key task as 34th Dáil convenes for first time
Your EV questions answered: Am I better to drive my 13-year-old diesel until it dies than buy a new EV?
Workplace wrangles: Staying on the right side of your HR department, and more labrynthine aspects of employment law
“I really feel unsafe in my own home and while walking out of it,” the man added. “I am really scared for my wife and my family. I have evidence of all this.”
Provocation
The court also heard that the woman had gotten a protection order against the man in recent weeks. The man said he believed the woman was trying to provoke him into breaching the protection order and was turning up outside his house “every day”.
Judge Gerard Furlong said the family court could not give the man’s wife and daughter protection against the woman with whom he had an affair, but that they could take the matter up with the gardaí which the court heard they had.
“I can’t give orders against this woman on behalf of your wife or your daughter. Any order that you might get does not protect your wife or your daughter, does not include them,” said the judge. He added that he was refusing the application for a protection order. The man then asked the judge, “how did she get the [protection] order”?
The judge replied that the man was welcome to appeal his decision and that “her [the woman’s] evidence on the day was sufficient to whatever judge was on”.
