The High Court has ordered the transfer of a jointly owned family home into the sole name of an anonymised mother and fixed child maintenance at €1,650 a month following a de novo family-law appeal.
K.L and M.N are former cohabitants with two children, aged 11 and 10, who have significant additional needs and long-term dependency. The court found that both parents were strongly committed to their care and shared substantial responsibilities, but described K.L as the children’s “anchor parent”.
M.N works full-time and has experienced significant career and income progression. K.L is not employed outside the home. Ms Justice Nuala Jackson accepted that the unpredictable nature of the children’s care, appointments, school interruptions and disrupted routines left K.L with very limited practical capacity to maintain paid employment.
The parties jointly owned a home valued at between €500,000 and €550,000, with an outstanding mortgage of about €217,500. M.N offered to transfer his interest outright to K.L provided she assumed the mortgage and property expenses, while proposing maintenance of €1,350 per month.
The court accepted the property-transfer proposal. It held that sole ownership would provide accommodation security for the children and for K.L, whose future pension-building capacity was also constrained by her caring responsibilities.
However, the judge found the proposed maintenance inadequate. M.N’s base salary had risen by €35,000 between July 2025 and May 2026, and the court considered that some performance-related bonus was also likely.
Maintenance was set at €1,650 per month, divided equally between the children and inclusive of the incapacitated child tax relief. M.N must also continue paying their health insurance and half of agreed educational, medical, dental and optical expenses, subject to prior agreement for individual expenses above €250.
The court made no order for disputed maintenance arrears, noting that M.N had continued paying utilities he was not otherwise obliged to discharge. The Circuit Court orders were affirmed except where varied by the High Court.