*Judge Alec Gabbett described the case as “very 1950s”.ย
AN AGREEMENT not to interfere with the immersion switch in the family home is one of a number of undertakings between a warring couple, a court has heard.
After being told of the undertaking involving the house immersion switch at the Family Law Court, Judge Alec Gabbett remarked โit is very 1950s isnโt it?โ.
In the case, the couple each have temporary Protection Orders against each other and were each applying for a Safety Order. The coupleโs relationship has ended but neither has sufficient money to move out of the family home.
Judge Gabbett said that the coupleโs situation โis a disasterโ. He made his comment after hearing that one of the undertakings is that the husband is not to access his wifeโs ensuite bathroom.
Solicitor for the wife, Ronan Connolly said there has been no breach of undertakings by his client โbut there has been flagrant breach of one and two of the undertakingsโ by the husband.
Solicitor for the husband, Lorraine OโCallaghan Daly said this was denied. Both Mr Connolly and Ms OโCallaghan Daly agreed that the undertaking that the immersion switch not be interfered with โis doing okayโ.
The couple have also undertaken to only text each other for access and welfare of children, phones to remain unblocked and security cameras to be deactivated.
Judge Gabbett asked the solicitors, โWhy are they still living together?โ
Mr Connolly said that this was a valid question but that his client has nowhere to go.
Mr Connolly said that there was one incident where his client โwas in genuine fear but that is a matter for evidenceโ.
Judge Gabbett said that he was thinking of the coupleโs โpoor childrenโ.
Judge Gabbett said, โThis is not a normal householdโ.
On the refusal of either party to leave the family home, Judge Gabbett said, โWho is going to blink first? This is brinkmanship at its bestโ.
Judge Gabbett said, โMy primary concern is the children. It is a question of who is going to blink first. It is a case of โit is my house and I am not leavingโ – that is on both of yeโ.
He added, โThat is going to cause children no end of difficulty and it is actually a form of emotional abuseโ.
โI am sorry to be that blunt but that is what it is – the children are suffering because of this type of behaviour. That is not a criticism of ye because ye don’t realise the impact of your actionsโ.
Judge Gabbett directed that the two commence a parenting while separated course so that they can become educated as to the consequences of their actions.
Mr Connolly confirmed to Judge Gabbett that divorce proceedings have been lodged for issue and were drafted by counsel relatively recently.
Judge Gabbett commented โthat is fantasticโ and remarked โhe sooner this divorce is over the betterโ.
Ms O’Callaghan Daly said that an informal access arrangement for the children has been working well and said that her client was proposing on access that he “would leave the family home on the house days children are with mother and come back at 9pm at night and say ‘good-night’ to the children and go to his own room at that point”.
The husband told Judge Gabbett that the family home is worth between โฌ250,000 to โฌ270,000.
Judge Gabbett said, โYe are fighting over โฌ250,000 and after โฌ30,000 to โฌ40,000 are paid by each in the circuit court, you will be left with โฌ60,000 each to buy a new house and get a mortgage – it is a very sensible approach isnโt it?โ
Judge Gabbett adjourned the Safety Order applications until December.
