The High Court has affirmed a Circuit Court order restraining a husband from attending at or near the family home in Dublin or entering it, until further order. Mr Justice Abbott delivered the judgment on 18 December 2015, dismissing the husband’s appeal against the order made under section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act 1996.
The parties married in June 2005 and have three children, born in 2002, 2003 and 2004. The children lived with their mother in the family home. She applied to the Circuit Court in December 2014 for a barring order, saying she feared her husband would return when an earlier order expired.
A District Court barring order made in January 2014 had prevented him from entering the home until 21 January 2015. The wife’s affidavit described alleged violence and physical abuse, and said the children were anxious and afraid. She also alleged that her husband questioned the children about past assaults and recorded them in the home. These were her allegations; the husband disputed them.
The husband argued that the new application sought to continue an order that had expired or obtain a fresh one. He said he had complied with the earlier order and that the assault charge relied on in the earlier proceedings had been dismissed. He also said his relationship with the children was good and that the wife could not still fear him after he had stayed away from the home.
Both parties gave evidence. The judgment records disputes over alleged assaults, recordings, the parties’ dealings with gardaí and the husband’s relationship with the children. The court noted that the wife’s evidence focused substantially on events before the earlier barring order. It nevertheless preferred her evidence about her present fear, taking account of her testimony and the husband’s evidence and conduct in court.
Under section 3(3), a barring order may prohibit violence or threats, molestation or putting an applicant or dependent person in fear, and attendance at or near a place where they reside. The High Court concluded that the wife remained in fear and that the husband’s continuing resentment and lack of insight could lead to confrontations that would reinforce that fear. It also acknowledged the husband’s account of damaging media confusion about his identity, but found that this did not resolve the wife’s fear.
The court affirmed the Circuit Court order. The restraint remains in place until further order; the High Court did not set a new end date in its judgment.