P.M v E.M (Approved) [2020] IEHC 700 (23 October 2020)

P.M v E.M (Approved) [2020] IEHC 700 (23 October 2020)

The father deliberately and repeatedly breached court-ordered access arrangements, unilaterally denying the mother access to their child, and his explanations were not credible. However, the procedural requirements for committal for contempt, specifically the service of a penal endorsement, were not satisfied. The court found the father's conduct to be a calculated and cynical disregard of court orders, but committal could not be ordered due to procedural defects.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 700
Parties
Applicant / Appellant: P. M.; Respondent: E. M.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal and Enforcement / High Court Judgment on Motion for Attachment and Committal for Contempt
Outcome
Application for attachment and committal refused due to procedural defect (lack of penal endorsement).
Legal Topics
Custody and Access, Enforcement of Court Orders, Civil Contempt, Parenting Orders, COVID 19 and Family Law
Family Law Contempt of Court Custody and Access Enforcement of Court Orders Civil Contempt Parenting Orders COVID 19 and Family Law

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 6 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P. M.

Applicant / Appellant

E. M.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal and Enforcement / High Court Judgment on Motion for Attachment and Committal for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent father was in contempt of court for breaching access orders regarding the child L.
  2. 2 Whether the denial of access was reasonable in the circumstances, particularly in light of COVID-19.
  3. 3 Whether the procedural requirements for committal for contempt were satisfied, including penal endorsement.

Ratio Decidendi

The father deliberately and repeatedly breached court-ordered access arrangements, unilaterally denying the mother access to their child, and his explanations were not credible. However, the procedural requirements for committal for contempt, specifically the service of a penal endorsement, were not satisfied. The court found the father's conduct to be a calculated and cynical disregard of court orders, but committal could not be ordered due to procedural defects.

Court Disposition

Application for attachment and committal refused due to procedural defect (lack of penal endorsement).

Orders

  • No order for committal made.
  • Mother's application for enforcement under s.60 of the 2015 Act previously refused for lack of jurisdiction.