Judgment: 2026-06-26 · Court archive

High Court sets €450 monthly maintenance and €100 missed-access payment in family law appeal

High Court · [2026] IEHC 503

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • L.M.
  • N.O.
  • P.
  • S.S.
  • Nuala Jackson
What

High Court sets €450 monthly maintenance and €100 missed-access payment in family law appeal

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Jackson J found N.O.’s financial disclosure and supporting documentation unsatisfactory. She concluded that he was working more than he represented, had access to a vehicle and was likely still cohabiting with S.S. The judge also accepted that some inherited funds may have been spent adapting S.S.’s home for P., but was not satisfied that all funds received for P.’s benefit had been used for that purpose.

The High Court has revised maintenance and respite-care arrangements in a long-running family law dispute involving a dependent 18-year-old with significant additional needs.

Ms Justice Nuala Jackson, deciding N.O.’s appeal from a Circuit Family Court order of July 30, 2025, directed him to pay €450 per month for P. That figure will fall to €400 after separate arrears of €4,046 are cleared at €50 per month.

The court also entered judgment for L.M. for €32,135 in older arrears arising from N.O.’s ordered contribution towards respite care when he did not take up access. Enforcement of that judgment was stayed for 24 months to allow N.O. time to stabilise his circumstances.

For future missed access, N.O. must pay €100 for each Saturday or Sunday not availed of, capped at €200 for a weekend. No payment will arise where access is frustrated or impeded by L.M.

The appeal followed a Circuit Court order which had directed money from two bank accounts and proceeds of N.O.’s vehicle towards maintenance arrears. It had also required an accounting for €25,000 inherited by P. and received and spent by N.O.

N.O. challenged several aspects of that order. He disputed respite-care calculations and vouching, said some seized funds belonged to others or were intended to support another child, and argued that losing his vehicle damaged his ability to work. He also relied on health difficulties and said he had been unable to attend the July 2025 Circuit Court hearing.

Jackson J found N.O.’s financial disclosure and supporting documentation unsatisfactory. She concluded that he was working more than he represented, had access to a vehicle and was likely still cohabiting with S.S. The judge also accepted that some inherited funds may have been spent adapting S.S.’s home for P., but was not satisfied that all funds received for P.’s benefit had been used for that purpose.

The court additionally directed transfer of the parties’ joint Irish Life assurance policy to L.M., subject to adjustments for premiums and any encashment value.

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