An agreement not to interfere with the immersion switch in the family home is one of a number of undertakings between a warring couple, a Family Law Court has heard.
After being told of the undertaking involving the immersion, Judge Alec Gabbett remarked, “It is very 1950s, isn’t it?”
The couple at the centre of the case have seen their relationship break down but neither has sufficient money to move out of the family home. The man and woman both have a temporary protection order against the other and were both applying for a safety order in the latest proceedings.
Judge Gabbett described the couple’s situation as “a disaster” as he was told that one undertaking is that the man not access his wife’s ensuite bathroom.
Christmas TV and movie guide: the best shows and films to watch
Laura Kennedy: We like the ideal of Christmas. The reality, though, is often strained, sad and weird
How Britain’s prison system is teetering on the brink of collapse
Fostering at Christmas: ‘We once had two boys, age 9 and 11, who had never had a Christmas tree’
[ Judge calls for mandatory legal aid in some family law cases regardless of incomeOpens in new window ]
Solicitor for the wife Ronan Connolly said there had been no breach of undertakings by his client “but there has been flagrant breach of one and two of the undertakings” by the husband. Solicitor for the husband Lorraine O’Callaghan Daly said this was denied.
Both solicitors agreed that the undertaking that the immersion switch not be interfered with “is doing okay”.
The couple have also undertaken to only text each other regarding access to and welfare of their children.
Mr Connolly said that there was one incident where his client “was in genuine fear but that is a matter for evidence”.
‘Not normal household’
Judge Gabbett said that he was thinking of the couple’s “poor children” and that “this is not a normal household”.
On the refusal of either party to leave the family home, Judge Gabbett said: “Who is going to blink first? This is brinkmanship at its best.”
“That is going to cause children no end of difficulty and it is actually a form of emotional abuse,” the judge said. “I am sorry to be that blunt but that is what it is – the children are suffering because of this type of behaviour. That is not a criticism of ye because ye don’t realise the impact of your actions.”
Parenting course
Judge Gabbett directed that the man and woman commence a parenting-while-separated course so they can be better educated about the consequences of their actions.
Mr Connolly confirmed that divorce proceedings had been lodged, with the judge saying “the sooner this divorce is over the better”.
Ms O’Callaghan Daly said that an informal access arrangement for the children had been working well and that her client was proposing that he “would leave the family home” on days when the children were with mother and come back at 9pm to say goodnight to the children and then go to his own room.
Judge Gabbett adjourned the safety order applications until December.
