A man has secured a barring order against his husband who allegedly sent pornographic images to family and friends on the applicant’s phone.
The family court heard that the applicant’s husband was consenting to the one-year barring order. He in turn secured a one-year safety order against the man who, the court heard, agreed to the order.
In sworn evidence to the court on Friday, the man who was seeking the barring order said his husband was threatening violence, there had been “continuous verbal abuse” and he had also threatened to get friends to attack him.
The man said their relationship had “immediately soured” after they had gotten married. He claimed his husband was emotionally blackmailing him and had thrown out his medication while there was continuous online harassment and abuse.
Katie Taylor and Amanda Serrano set to show true boxing values at strange big-money event
‘I want someone to take an actual stand on immigration’: How will TCD student debaters vote?
Spice Village takeaway review: Indian food in south Dublin that will keep you coming back
Trump’s cabinet: who’s been picked, who’s in the running?
The man said his husband had sent pornographic images to family and friends from his number and he could “do nothing about it”. The man also told the court the home they had lived in together was in his sole name.
The court heard the couple are about to begin divorce proceedings.
The man who was seeking the safety order said his husband’s friends had asked him to leave the home while he was in the middle of having his dinner and asked him, “do you think you have a right to live in this house?”
He said his husband’s friends were mocking and threatening him and were “laughing like demons”.
The man said he was scared for his life and felt threatened in the home, adding he did not want to go back there.
He said his husband had been verbally abusive towards him and was saying things that were not “nice to me all the time”.
Judge Shalom Binchy noted that both men were consenting to the orders being sought against them and listened to their sworn evidence. She granted a one-year barring order to one of the men and a one-year safety order to the other.
In a separate case, a woman secured a safety order against her adult daughter, who she said had “a chronic drug problem”.
The woman told the court her daughter had previously been “a functioning addict” and that she had been supporting her heavily during this time.
However, the woman said her daughter’s behaviour had deteriorated when she discovered crack and had paid thousands of euro in bills on her behalf.
She said there were occasions when her daughter had been banging on her door at 2am with other people.
“It’s just constant,” said the woman.
The woman said her daughter had turned up at her place of work in recent times and that she couldn’t have her turning up there or at her home.
“She’s belligerent,” the woman said. “She behaves like I’m the reason for her drug problem.”
The woman said her daughter had screamed abuse at her on previous occasions, calling her disgusting names and saying things such as “I wish you were dead”.
The woman’s daughter was not present for the hearing despite the judge being satisfied she was aware of it.
The woman said her daughter was unpredictable, adding “sometimes I think the windows are going to come through”. She also said that some of her daughter’s children lived with her and she was seeking an order to protect one of the younger children also.
Judge Binchy granted the woman a three-year safety order and said if the woman’s daughter received treatment or improved, she could apply to get the order varied or discharged.
