Judgment: 2024-10-11 · Court archive

High Court orders weekly overnight and alternate weekend contact for father

A judge varied arrangements for two young children after their father relocated to Ireland, ordering regular overnight stays while declining to adopt a two-night midweek schedule.

High Court, Family Law · [2024] IEHC 679

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Nuala Jackson (Judge)
  • Professor Sheehan
What

A judge varied arrangements for two young children after their father relocated to Ireland, ordering regular overnight stays while declining to adopt a two-night midweek schedule.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ireland
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The father had sought a week-on, week-off schedule. The mother argued that the existing arrangements should remain until mid-2025, in line with the timing suggested in the assessor’s first report. The judge found a review was justified because the father now lived within a few kilometres of the mother, ending the long-distance circumstances that had shaped the earlier schedule. She said the children otherwise went about two-thirds of each month without physical contact with him.

The High Court has ordered weekly overnight contact and alternate weekend stays for two young children with their father, varying the existing arrangements after he moved to Ireland and settled near their mother.

In a judgment delivered on 11 October 2024, Ms Justice Nuala Jackson said the children should spend every second weekend with their father, from after school on Friday until 5.30pm on Sunday, and every Wednesday night, from school collection until school on Thursday. The mother is to collect them from the father’s home after alternate weekends.

The judge said the father could instead choose a Tuesday-to-Wednesday overnight each week, provided he used the same night consistently. She did not order the two midweek nights recommended by Professor Sheehan, the expert assessor, citing the children’s anxiety and confidence difficulties and concerns about potentially disruptive childcare routines.

The father had sought a week-on, week-off schedule. The mother argued that the existing arrangements should remain until mid-2025, in line with the timing suggested in the assessor’s first report. The judge found a review was justified because the father now lived within a few kilometres of the mother, ending the long-distance circumstances that had shaped the earlier schedule. She said the children otherwise went about two-thirds of each month without physical contact with him.

The court heard evidence that the father worked in an office on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, with commuting time and childcare arrangements relevant to the children’s routine. The judge said the proposed two-night schedule could entail early starts, late evenings and several forms of third-party care. She also noted the mother’s work arrangements were more compatible with hands-on care. The judgment recognised both parents as capable and committed and said the children had positive relationships with both.

The judge ordered that only the older child continue play therapy for now. The younger child should attend only if a GP referral is made based on that child’s individual needs. The judgment also provides for the father’s partner, or another responsible adult chosen by him, to help with collections and drop-offs if needed. In the short term, the parents are to attend school and sporting events separately to avoid distress for the children.

The parents were determined to be joint custodians. The court adopted other arrangements by reference to the expert report and the parents’ agreement, with specified times of 9am to 6pm for two provisions. It encouraged the parents to use family therapy and parenting support, but declined to order twice-yearly family meals, saying that without voluntary participation they could increase the children’s anxiety. Orders were made under the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 and the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964, with liberty to apply.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review