The High Court refused a respondent’s application to change an order dividing the net sale proceeds of a family home, leaving in place a 60% share for the applicant and 40% for the respondent.
The motion, issued in October 2013 under section 18 of the Family Law Act 1995, sought to vary an order made on appeal in March 2012. The respondent argued, among other matters, that the applicant had failed to comply with orders on access to the couple’s two youngest children and the communication of information about them. Both parties agreed that the High Court could hear the application.
The court said the breakdown in access would not be taken into account when deciding whether to change the division of the sale proceeds. It found that the applicant had not alienated the respondent from any of the children, and that the respondent’s own behaviour had substantially contributed to the rift with the older children. It also found that the applicant had handled access to the two youngest children badly, but said it would be unjust to penalise her for those events.
The judgment recounted years of unsuccessful efforts to restore access, including family therapy, a facilitator and meetings with a psychotherapist. The court said it was difficult to identify all the reasons for the breakdown between the respondent and the two younger children. It concluded that the access breakdown likely took hold in the six months after the respondent left the family home in October 2010, and proved impossible to repair.
The respondent also alleged that the applicant had withheld information about financial support available to her to buy alternative accommodation. The court accepted the applicant’s evidence that an offer of assistance from her sister and brother-in-law materialised only shortly before she offered, in August 2013, to buy out the respondent’s 40% interest based on a €750,000 valuation. It said the appropriate response was to reject the offer; there was no need to bring a motion to vary the order.
The court said the applicant remained responsible for housing four dependent children and there had been no change in circumstances. It refused the requested variation. The access order for A had expired because she was 16. The order for B remained in force, although the court noted that she had made her wishes clear. The judgment expressed hope that the respondent could restore a constructive relationship with his children.