Court time wasted on ‘squabbles’, says judge

A HIGH Court judge has said publicly funded court time should not be wasted on resolving “petty squabbles” between warring parents in hearings involving “enormous” costs.

Mr Justice Michael Twomey said it was “ironic” that the “tens of thousands of euro” costs of a hearing about whether a father could take his young children away for one weekend here would cover the cost of an annual holiday for years to come for families on the national average income.

While the parents involved were well-off professionals who could afford such costs, that was not the issue as the same legal issues applied to all litigants irrespective of their means, he said.

The issue was “proper” use of court time and resources and whether this family law dispute deserved almost a full day hearing in the High Court, a court funded by the taxpayer.

He was giving judgment on a case involving a couple who continue to live with their young children in the same house pending judicial separation proceedings.

They are essentially living separate lives and communicate about the children via email or text, the judge said.

The mother objected to the father taking the children for a weekend to a holiday home in Ireland owned by a relative of his. She alleged he had an alcohol problem and was referred for treatment after drinking excessively.

The man said he had an alcohol problem in the past but had addressed it via a treatment programme and was now a social drinker. He exhibited letters from his GP and a consultant psychiatrist.

The judge said the man had sole control of the children for a number of hours at the weekends when he took them for outings, but had only had them overnight once on his own when the mother was away.

He added the court had to treat the material from the GP and psychiatrist with caution as the hearing was on the basis of sworn statements with no oral evidence or opportunity to cross-examine in circumstances where the mother claimed the father continued to drink to excess.

The judge said that a parent had a right to have access to their child and a child had a right to have contact with their parent, with overnight access.

While he did not say either parent was wrong to feel strongly concerning their children, resolution of the dispute should not have involved extensive correspondence, eight affidavits and almost a day in the High Court, he added.