The High Court ordered six children to spend alternate weeks with each parent after a dispute over their care arrangements. The order followed a welfare report and evidence from a consultant child psychiatrist appointed by the court.
The case concerned W. D. and S. D., whose initials the judgment says were changed to enforce the in camera rule. The parents had proposed different arrangements: the husband sought equal time in alternate weeks, while the wife proposed one home base with her and alternate-weekend access for the father, plus some overnight stays during the week.
Dr. Gerard Byrne interviewed both parents and each child. He recommended that, during school terms, all but child A live with the wife from Monday after school to Friday, then spend weekends with the husband three out of every four weeks. He recommended that the children have one identified home base. His other recommendations covered holidays, keeping siblings together apart from child A, and expert attention for two children.
The husband challenged the report’s recommendations, saying the children wanted equal time and had experience of many homes in different countries. The wife argued that equal weekly changes would undermine consistency during term time. Dr. Byrne gave evidence in court on 16 February 2011. He said a week-on, week-off arrangement could affect continuity and the children’s ability to form meaningful relationships. The judgment records that the court considered the children’s wishes and the psychiatrist’s evidence, while expressing concern about how the husband had consulted the children.
The court ordered alternate weeks with each parent throughout the year. It adopted the remainder of Dr. Byrne’s recommendations, subject to holidays. The order also addressed shared sports equipment and clothes, cooperation on education and sibling relationships, transport arrangements for the wife, attendance at certain religious and school events, and opportunities for the wife to visit child A at boarding school.
The judgment required the wife and children to leave the family home within two calendar months. It said the wife could apply urgently to enforce parts of the ancillary provision made in the non-European jurisdiction. The Irish court said financial issues were outside its remit and that the judgment could be made available to that court to assist with further ancillary matters, without interfering with its jurisdiction.