Father fails to persuade court mother is behind daughter’s break of contact

A father has failed to persuade a court that his daughter broke contact with him due to pressure and coercion from her mother.

The Court of Appeal was not convinced by his claim that the mother breached earlier court orders providing for his access to their children.

In a ruling upholding a High Court decision, Mr Justice Senan Allen said continuing litigation “cannot be helpful” for the situation.

The former spouses divorced several years ago and were awarded joint custody, with the children to reside with the mother. Orders were made outlining a detailed regime for the father’s weekly access to the children.

John FitzGerald: An attempt to buy the next election with a giveaway budget would be a gross miscalculation

---

Justine McCarthy: We need to talk about why we’re all so angry

---

Selling out Croke Park proves Leinster have broken the mould in terms of marketing their brand

---

US student protests: Democrats are worried this is 1968 again

---

Mr Justice Allen said the plan was largely adhered to until some ago when their daughter refused to go to the father’s house.

The father blamed the mother for the breakdown, alleging she was manipulating, pressuring and coercing their daughter. The mother maintained that their child independently decided she no longer wished to have in-person contact with him, said the judge.

She felt this was triggered by a step in the father’s new relationship. The mother submitted that she encouraged their child to attend the father’s home but she could not physically force her, said the judge.

The man applied to the High Court seeking various orders, including for enforcement of the access orders and for “compensatory access” for the dates he did not see his child.

An independent professional appointed to determine the daughter’s views reported that the child had her own perspective on how her parents’ divorce affected her and did not want any face-to-face contact with her father at that time.

In the High Court, Mr Justice John Jordan identified that a development in the father’s new relationship did not go down well with his children and was the precipitating event for the girl’s decision.

Neither parent could be absolved from responsibility for the breakdown in contact arrangements, but the primary cause was not any conduct of the mother, the judge concluded.

The father appealed the judge’s ruling but accepted the court could not make an order for “compensatory access” for time lost. The mother cross-appealed over the orders directing family therapy.

Ruling for the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice Allen said the father bore the onus of establishing, on the balance of probabilities, that the mother was responsible for the daughter not attending his house.

The man did not engage at all with the High Court’s findings as to the cause of the access breakdown, the judge said. Mr Justice Allen found that the High Court’s conclusions were based on a reasoned analysis of the evidence

He said Mr Justice Jordan gave due weight to the voice of the child, as is required by the Constitution and law.

With the support of his colleagues, Ms Justice Márie Whelan and Mr Justice Charles Meenan, he dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal.

• Join us for The Irish Times Inside Politics podcast live in Belfast on April 10th
• Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
• Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date