A man has failed to convince the High Court he is unable to pay the family home mortgage and weekly maintenance of €100 to his former wife and €120 to each of his children.
In a judgment published on Friday, Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell said reducing the amount of maintenance that had been ordered by the Circuit Court would place an “intolerable and untenable burden” on the mother, who is already living in “very straitened circumstances”.
She had been in employment but due to her obligations to one of their children, who has extensive additional needs, she cannot currently work outside the home.
The judge noted the father’s position would improve over time and, with prudent management, he was likely to retain the benefit of his three valuable properties, two of which could generate reasonable rents. The property interests, combined with his salary and modest pension, should adequately meet his future needs, the judge said.
Markets in Vienna or Christmas at The Shelbourne? 10 holiday escapes over the festive season
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
Michael Harding: I went to the cinema to see Small Things Like These. By the time I emerged I had concluded the film was crap
Look inside: 1950s bungalow transformed into modern five-bed home in Greystones for €1.15m
Mr Justice O’Donnell made orders affirming the grant of a decree of divorce and affirming orders regarding custody, care and access to the children, none of which the man sought to alter.
The father appealed to the High Court over the financial provision he had been ordered to meet, which he argued was too onerous, particularly given interest rate increases on his property loans.
As well as weekly maintenance of €100 for his ex-wife and €120 for each of his children, the man was ordered to assist with college fees if one of his children wished to attend and did not secure a grant. He was also made responsible for paying the mortgage, mortgage protection, house insurance and local property tax on the family home.
The mother was granted a right of residence in the family home for several years, after which point it was to be sold and she was to receive all of the proceeds once the balance of the mortgage and sale costs were deducted.
Mr Justice O’Donnell made orders that largely mirrored those of the Circuit Court. He noted the man was free to do what he wanted with his properties other than the family home.
The judge said the financial resources available here were “relatively limited” and neither parent could expect their divorce would not affect their lifestyles or generate “some level of hardship”.
He noted there had been applications in the District Court concerning mutual allegations of domestic violence and issues around access and maintenance. The Circuit Court made unappealed orders under the Domestic Violence Act of 2018 prohibiting the man from using or threatening to use violence against the woman and prohibiting him from watching where she lives, he said.
Until the hearing of the appeal, the man had maintained that his ex-wife should have found a job, but “very late in the day” he accepted she cannot work outside the home due to the needs of one of their children, said the judge. She receives carer’s allowance, domiciliary allowance and children’s allowance.
The man had taken a hostile approach to child access, including failing to help when she needed urgent medical treatment, the judge said. The mother is dedicated to their children and her caring work leaves her with little time to spend on herself, he said, but the father appeared to have “no insight” into the consequences for her in caring for their children.
The judge said the man had sent a series of “demeaning, vulgar and sexualised” texts to the woman around the time of their separation. He had agreed he at various times had allowed significant arrears to build regarding maintenance, the judge added.
Mr Justice O’Donnell was satisfied the woman was honest and credible, while he found the man to be “evasive and unconvincing” about his income from rental properties.
He accepted the man had faced financial hardship due to the increased cost of servicing his property loans. However, the judge was not convinced he had provided the court with a full account of his resources and was satisfied he received cash payments that had not been not disclosed.
He is a resourceful and intelligent person with a stable job, but at the appeal he adopted a passive approach to his finances and “seemed more focused on establishing that the answer to his difficulties lay in reducing his already somewhat minimal obligations” to his ex-wife and children.
The judge was satisfied the man had engaged in controlling and abusive behaviour towards the woman and, insofar as he had expressed some remorse for his treatment of her, this seemed “somewhat rote and did not impress me as genuine”.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Our In The News podcast is now published daily – Find the latest episode here
