L.D -v- C.D [2012] IEHC 582 (30 October 2012)

L.D -v- C.D [2012] IEHC 582 (30 October 2012)

The welfare of the children requires individualised custody and access arrangements, not equal division of time. The respondent is entitled to full ownership of inherited agricultural lands due to circumstances of transfer. The family home is apportioned 60% to the respondent and 40% to the appellant, with deductions for costs, arrears, and compensation. Maintenance is reduced to €100 per week due to appellant's financial circumstances and time spent with children.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 582
Parties
Appellant: L. D.; Respondent: C. D. (nee M)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / High Court Appeal From Circuit Court Decree of Divorce and Ancillary Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; orders varied.
Legal Topics
Judicial Separation, Divorce, Custody, Access, Maintenance, Property Division
Family Law Judicial Separation Divorce Custody Access Maintenance Property Division

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L. D.

Appellant

C. D. (nee M)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / High Court Appeal From Circuit Court Decree of Divorce and Ancillary Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 custody and access arrangements for children
  2. 2 division of family home and inherited agricultural lands
  3. 3 maintenance and arrears

Ratio Decidendi

The welfare of the children requires individualised custody and access arrangements, not equal division of time. The respondent is entitled to full ownership of inherited agricultural lands due to circumstances of transfer. The family home is apportioned 60% to the respondent and 40% to the appellant, with deductions for costs, arrears, and compensation. Maintenance is reduced to €100 per week due to appellant's financial circumstances and time spent with children.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; orders varied.

Orders

  • Custody and access arrangements affirmed for three older children; phased access for M. to appellant.
  • Family home apportioned 60% to respondent, 40% to appellant after mortgage deduction.