J.E -v- D.E [2013] IEHC 379 (26 July 2013)

J.E -v- D.E [2013] IEHC 379 (26 July 2013)

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that varying the existing supervised access order would be in the best interests of the children. The court found the applicant's affidavit inadequate, noted his failure to file further evidence as directed, and accepted that the children did not wish for unsupervised access. Accordingly, the application to vary the access order was refused.

Citation
[2013] IEHC 379
Parties
Applicant: J. E.; Respondent: D. E.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary Access Order in Family Law Proceedings / Judgment on Application to Vary Access Order
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Access to Children, Variation of Access Orders, Best Interests of the Child, Supervised Access, Judicial Separation
Family Law Access to Children Variation of Access Orders Best Interests of the Child Supervised Access Judicial Separation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. E.

Applicant

D. E.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary Access Order in Family Law Proceedings / Judgment on Application to Vary Access Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established grounds to vary the existing supervised access order to unsupervised access
  2. 2 Whether a comprehensive access programme should be put in place
  3. 3 Whether the best interests of the children require a change in access arrangements

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that varying the existing supervised access order would be in the best interests of the children. The court found the applicant's affidavit inadequate, noted his failure to file further evidence as directed, and accepted that the children did not wish for unsupervised access. Accordingly, the application to vary the access order was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • All reliefs sought by the applicant in the notice of motion dated 17 July 2012 are refused.
  • The existing supervised access order remains in place.