The High Court has granted a decree of divorce and directed that a revised, equal parenting arrangement be developed for the couple’s children, while leaving the final access schedule to be settled after professional input and any further submissions.
In a judgment delivered on 20 May 2024, Mr Justice Max Barrett said the evidence did not support excluding the father from the children’s lives. He found that the mother had repeatedly denied him substantial access and that there was no reliable evidence that his involvement was contrary to the children’s best interests.
The judge directed that Professor Sheehan, or a professional of similar standing, meet the parties and devise a revised access schedule. The professional may provide observations before the court finalises its order, and the parties may make further submissions on those observations. The judge said a week-on/week-off arrangement, equal holiday periods and an equal division of special days did not appear impracticable or contrary to the children’s interests on the evidence then before him. He said any revised arrangement should start as soon as consistent with the children’s interests, with a gradual transition if advised.
The court heard the divorce case over 10 days. The judgment says the judge generally found the father more credible, often because his account was supported by contemporaneous messages. The judge said reports from a court-appointed psychologist could not safely be relied on because they depended in part on the mother’s account, which he found unsupported by other evidence. He also said allegations about the children becoming distressed after overnight stays were not corroborated by independent evidence.
On finances, the judge said he aimed for a broadly even division of assets. He decided that the family home should go to the father and the business and associated properties to the mother, describing the business as hers and finding the father’s contribution did not make it a joint concern. He ordered nil maintenance for the mother at that time because the evidence about her income and outgoings was insufficient for the court to assess a payment. She may seek an increase if she later provides clear and complete financial evidence. The judgment also noted that the father might seek maintenance in light of the intended increase in access.
The court’s conclusion was to grant the divorce and make orders concerning access and proper financial provision. The final access schedule remained subject to the further process set out in the judgment.