Judgment: 2013-06-21 · Court archive

High Court orders joint custody after rejecting sole custody bids

The court directed a fresh start for two children, with access to develop through a parenting programme and overnight stays phased in with expert help.

The High Court · [2014] IEHC 638

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • A.B. (Applicant)
  • C.D. (Respondent)
  • E.F.
  • G.H.
  • Michael White (Judge)
What

The court directed a fresh start for two children, with access to develop through a parenting programme and overnight stays phased in with expert help.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ireland
  • United Kingdom
  • Family home
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Michael White, followed a hearing held over seven days in January and March 2013. The court was considering an application under section 11 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. It did not grant either parent's request for sole custody.

The High Court ordered joint custody of two children after both parents sought sole custody in a dispute over their welfare. It said the father should have access developed through a parenting programme, with overnight stays phased in over time with expert help.

The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Michael White, followed a hearing held over seven days in January and March 2013. The court was considering an application under section 11 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. It did not grant either parent's request for sole custody.

The parents, identified in the judgment as A.B. and C.D., married in 2005 and have two daughters, identified as E.F. and G.H. The mother left the family home with the children for the United Kingdom in September 2010 without the father's knowledge or consent. She later returned to Ireland with them, and the father moved out of the family home. His access was supervised from March 2011 to March 2012 and was unsupervised by the time of the hearing.

The mother alleged that the father had sexually abused the older child. The court found there were objective grounds for concern, including unusual behaviour described by the mother and an unusual disclosure during a recorded police interview. It said the mother's participation in that interview compromised the process. The evidence, however, fell “way short” of the standard of proof the court considered appropriate. It also rejected the father's claim that the mother and her father had conspired to deprive him of custody through removal and false allegations. The court did not make a finding that the alleged abuse occurred.

The court found that the father had been loud, threatening and abusive during an argument at the family home on the night of 11 September and the following morning in 2010, and had been drinking to excess. It did not believe he had been physically violent towards the mother. It also found that the mother had engaged in behaviour that undermined the father to the children and said that had to stop. The judgment described her as attentive and said she had the children's best interests at heart.

Mr Justice White said there should be an attempt at a fresh start in light of assessments carried out after the children's return to Ireland. He said the father could have overnight access, phased in with expert assistance. The court suggested an arrangement of alternate weekends from Saturday morning to Sunday night, regular weekday visits and a visit on one day of the other weekend, with some weekends of exclusive custody during the year. The judgment framed this schedule as a suggestion for the parties to work towards, rather than setting out a detailed final timetable in the passage provided.

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