E.D. v C.K. (Approved) [2024] IEHC 126 (16 February 2024)

E.D. v C.K. (Approved) [2024] IEHC 126 (16 February 2024)

Respondent's conduct, including drug use and dismissive attitude, adversely impacted applicant's welfare but did not put her safety at risk; safety order is appropriate to protect welfare, barring order not justified; respondent's undertakings and ongoing drug testing mitigate risk.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 126
Parties
Applicant: E. D.; Respondent: C. K.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Separation and Domestic Violence Reliefs / Interim Applications for Relief Pending Substantive Proceedings
Outcome
Safety order granted in favour of applicant; barring order refused; respondent's undertaking to reside away from family home accepted; access subject to negative drug testing; joint decision-making regarding children; liberty to apply; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Judicial Separation, Safety Order, Barring Order, Protection Order, Child Welfare, Drug Abuse, Conduct Assessment
Family Law Domestic Violence Judicial Separation Safety Order Barring Order Protection Order Child Welfare Drug Abuse +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. D.

Applicant

C. K.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Separation and Domestic Violence Reliefs / Interim Applications for Relief Pending Substantive Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether safety or welfare of applicant or dependent persons requires court intervention under Domestic Violence Act 2018
  2. 2 Appropriateness of barring order, safety order, or protection order
  3. 3 Role of conduct and causal link between respondent's behaviour and applicant's welfare

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent's conduct, including drug use and dismissive attitude, adversely impacted applicant's welfare but did not put her safety at risk; safety order is appropriate to protect welfare, barring order not justified; respondent's undertakings and ongoing drug testing mitigate risk.

Court Disposition

Safety order granted in favour of applicant; barring order refused; respondent's undertaking to reside away from family home accepted; access subject to negative drug testing; joint decision-making regarding children; liberty to apply; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Safety order against respondent pending further order
  • Respondent to reside away from family home except for access