Father who won case regarding widowers’ pension calls for clarity on referendum wording

A Tipperary father of three who successfully argued in the Supreme Court that he is entitled to the contributory widowers’ pension, despite not being married to his life partner, has called for clarity on the proposed wording to expand the constitutional definition of the family.

John O’Meara, who was with his late partner, the children’s mother, for almost 20 years, said he will be voting in favour of changing the family definition and would encourage everybody to “get out and vote” on March 8th.

[ March 8th referendums: Is history about to repeat itself? ]

Ireland’s varying family structures, such as lone parents and cohabiting couples, “need to be represented”, he said, adding that this is an “important referendum” for so many.

However, he feels the Government’s proposed wording– extending the definition of “family” from those founded on marriage to include “other durable relationships”– is “too vague”, leaving it open to criticism from people who might otherwise vote in favour of change.

Poll analysis: Housing and immigration are making the headlines, but other topics are becoming more prominent

---

Do Peadar Tóibín and Aontú have their finger on the public pulse?

---

Official records show costs row over care referendum wording

---

Simon Harris fears patent court referendum would be ‘rushed’ if held on June 7th

---

“I do feel the Government needs to put some more clarity on what they are proposing,” he said.

The public knows what is intended, he said, adding that he believes a majority of people will want to change this in support of families “that are around us every day”. However, it is the “lack of clarity” around the meaning of “other durable relationships” that might hold some back, he said.

“You are leaving it all in the hands of the judges to decide again. By doing that, they are creating that argument for the ‘No’ vote,” he added.

A recent Dáil debate heard that polygamous relationships and “throuples” will not be covered in the proposed expanded concept of the family.

[ Miriam Lord: Polygamy and throuples in the Dáil chamber? Doesn’t sound like a durable relationship ]

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr O’Meara’s exclusion from the widower’s contributory pension scheme is unconstitutional as it refuses the payment to bereaved unmarried parents with the same obligations to their children as bereaved married parents.

Legislation is needed to extend the widows’ and widowers’ pension to surviving unmarried partners with children.

In a decision supported by the majority of the court, the Chief Justice said he believed the limit of permissible interpretation of the Constitution would be exceeded if the court were to decide that article 41 includes marital and non-marital families alike.

Noting the article 41 definition will be put to the people by way of a referendum, Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell said the court is not the forum for debate on what the Constitution “should” say.

Mr O’Meara, an agricultural contractor from Nenagh, Co Tipperary, had been with his late partner Michelle Batey for nearly 20 years and had three children together.

They had not married primarily because of Ms Batey’s experience of her parents’ marriage and separation. She became ill with breast cancer, and they decided they would marry.

However, they were unable to after Ms Batey fell into a coma after contracting Covid-19. She died in 2021.

He said he is delighted the challenge brought by him and his three children over his ineligibility for the widower’s pension has highlighted the types of families the proposed new definition is intended to include.

“Everybody every day is beside someone that is in a family that is not recognised by the State and you just do not notice it. It could be the teacher who is teaching your child in school. They all need to get the same protections,” he said.

Mr O’Meara said he knew little about the legal system before initiating his High Court case with lawyers from the Free Legal Advice Centre (FLAC).

He took the case because he felt strongly that the provision excluding him from the pension represented “total discrimination” against his family.

He said he and Ms Batey worked all of their lives and paid their PRSI contributions, so he found it “very hard to take” when he found out there was nothing in place for his family. By contrast, he would have been means tested against Ms Batey’s income of Ms Batey, as his cohabitant, if he left his job.

It is an example of the State “taking from one hand and not giving back from the other”, he said.

Mr O’Meara’s case was rejected by the High Court, but this decision was unanimously overturned by seven Supreme Court judges this week.

• 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
• Our In The News podcast is now published daily – Find the latest episode here