The High Court largely affirmed the Circuit Court’s orders accompanying a decree of judicial separation, making several changes to arrangements for the children and awarding the father 50% of his appeal costs. The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys on 10 November 2020, gave written reasons for decisions first announced ex tempore on 23 October.
The respondent mother had appealed the ancillary orders. The High Court upheld the judicial separation decree and the mother’s supervised access, clarifying that supervision applied during transfers and transport as well as contact. It restored the access schedule in the Circuit Court’s order of 10 March 2020, with overnight weekend access from noon every second Saturday until 6 p.m. the following day. The first overnight was to begin on 24 October 2020. Additional access could be agreed by the parents.
The court directed that the mother could not drive the children unless their maternal grandmother was in the car, and could not consume alcohol during access or exercise access while under the influence. Both parents were directed not to criticise each other to the children, to communicate civilly and not to contact each other between 8 p.m. and 6.30 a.m., except in emergencies. The father could not suspend access solely on the basis of general public-health advice. The mother was excluded from the former family home and the estate where the father lived, except at agreed times for collection and drop-off. The court also directed that the father receive Child Benefit, Domiciliary Care Allowance or a comparable social-welfare benefit.
In explaining its decision, the court said it accepted the father’s evidence on disputed incidents involving the mother’s alcohol use, including attempted drink-driving with the children in January and July 2020. It also accepted evidence that the children had been exposed to violence and alcohol abuse. These were findings made in the appeal. The court said the children’s best interests governed custody and access and concluded that the father should remain their primary carer and in the family home. It affirmed the balance of the Circuit Court order except where it specified changes. Applications for further directions were to be made to the Circuit Court.
On costs, the court said the mother had been unsuccessful on the appeal’s main issues, while noting that the appeal had helped reactivate access already provided for in the Circuit Court order. It awarded the father half of his High Court appeal costs and left in place the Circuit Court’s decision that each side bear its own costs there. The court described the partial award as neither punitive nor unreasonable. It said the costs order had not yet been perfected and that it remained open to consider a proposal to stay it until the former family home was sold.