A Waterford District Court judge granted A.P. a safety order against B.T. after finding, on the balance of probabilities, that he had a history of violent behaviour towards her. The order is to remain in force until 29 November 2020.
The ruling, delivered by Judge Brian O’Shea on 30 November 2017, dealt with A.P.’s safety order application and B.T.’s application for access to their two children, K.T. and F.T. The court granted protection for A.P. alone. It said it had heard no evidence about the children that came close to what had happened to her, and did not include them in the safety order.
A.P.’s evidence included allegations of assaults and threats, which B.T. denied. The judge accepted that the alleged incidents, or events sufficiently close to them, had occurred. The court described A.P. as terrified of B.T. and accepted that he had a bad temper. The judgment says the history had been ongoing intermittently from 2009 to the time of the proceedings.
The court also considered the children’s views when deciding access. It met them together in chambers after both parents agreed to the arrangement and undertook not to discuss their evidence or influence what they said. The judge found no attempt had been made to influence them. The children said they loved both parents but found their father’s anger difficult to bear. They preferred several short visits to one long visit and opposed overnight stays. The court considered their views only on access, not on the safety order application.
B.T. sought one day of unsupervised access, accepting that any increase should be gradual. The court ordered access for two continuous hours one day each week, with both children together. B.T. is to collect them after school or at A.P.’s home. Their parents are to arrange the day and time using B.T.’s work schedule, which he must post weekly to A.P.; she must return the timetable in a timely manner. The arrangements must be reasonable and cannot prevent B.T. receiving the full ordered access.
The judge said access might increase to two two-hour visits after two months and possibly a third after a further three months. Those were anticipated steps, not terms of the order. The judge recommended, but did not order, that B.T. attend an anger management course at his own expense. Additional access beyond the order may be agreed, but is at A.P.’s discretion and may be withdrawn without cause.
A separate maintenance application was adjourned to 17 January 2018. The court said it was not retaining seisin of that application or the case.