Campaigners and a TD have expressed deep concern at a “stomach churning” case which saw an Irish court allegedly leave a child in the care of their father, a convicted rapist, after a family law hearing.
The father, who served an eight-year prison term for the attack on a woman, was granted custody of the child in spite of his criminal record, The Irish Daily Mail reported on Sunday.
It is understood that the “brutal” rape previously made national headlines.
The newspaper reports that the child has not been returned to the custody of their “heartbroken” mother and remains living with their father.
It reports that the child has remained in the care of the convicted rapist for more than a year as the case continues to make its way through the clogged family court system.
The child’s mother said that she has suffered a year of heartbreak since the child was removed from her care. She told the newspaper: “I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. Not having them here in the morning, bringing them to school, having dinner with them and putting them to bed. After all their life with me, they were just taken away.”
It is understood that the mother had sought a protection order against her former partner and the father of the child when their relationship came to an end, She said that she only became aware of the partner’s worrying past after she became pregnant with their child.
Trish Horrigan-Lehane, of The Brigid’s (VASR: Victims Against Structural Revictimisation), which supports families affected by the family courts, described the case as one of the worst she had encountered, calling it “stomach churning.”
Ms Horrigan-Lehane told Gript that it raises serious questions about safeguarding and whether both parents were given a fair opportunity to be heard.
“If you have something to say which is in relation to the safeguarding of your child, you must be given an opportunity to speak in court,” she said.
The campaigner said such matters should be properly examined, and all the available evidence should be heard.
She pointed to problems with “rushed” family court hearings, as the family courts can deal with a large number of cases over a short time period.
Ms Horrigan-Lehane described situations where several cases are called in quick succession, potentially limiting the time available to hear each person’s account. She believes that interim decisions can have enormous consequences for children and families, even though they are intended to be temporary.
“Delays in securing a further hearing can mean families wait months for their cases to be reconsidered,” said Ms Horrigan-Lehane, who described cases in which hearings allegedly proceeded despite a party having provided a medical certificate explaining their absence.
“The cases are happening so quickly that there is not enough time to properly give a judgement or an interim order based on the evidence that is being presented on the day,” she told Gript.
She said that a lack of transparency in the family courts, because of the controversial in-camera rule, has created a shroud of secrecy around family court judgements.
“Without public scrutiny, you don’t have accountability and you do not have a trustworthy system. Every case is of public importance.”
While she said that anonymity is essential to protect families’ identities, she believes that judgements can be published in an anonymous form without exposing the families involved.
“Judgements should be accessible to the public, legal professionals and researchers. Confidentiality should not mean that decisions are entirely shielded from public scrutiny.
“It has to be a transparent system. It has to have accountability,” added Ms Horrigan-Lehane.
CONVICTED RAPIST FLEW ABROAD TO TAKE CHILD HOME FROM HOLIDAY
Because of repeated adjournments, a full hearing of the case has not yet taken place, and the mother is still without her young child more than a year later.
In the case reported by The Mail, the mother was on holiday in another EU State with her child and extended family when one night, while they were eating at a restaurant, they were left stunned when local police showed up. Police said they had received a welfare report regarding the child.
The Mail on Sunday reports: “The mother learned her ex had contacted the local police from his home in Ireland after seeing pictures of the event on social media, claiming she was ‘drunk’.
“Two police men arrived and spoke to us, apologised and said “have a nice evening” and left. They [the police] were embarrassed, we were embarrassed, but that was that,” she said.
However, the next day the mother said her shock deepened when she discovered that the ex had flown out to where the family was staying.
She told the paper: “I couldn’t believe my eyes. I was in shock, but I didn’t want to scare my child. He said he was taking our child home. I couldn’t believe it but I really didn’t want a spectacle in front of them. He made up some excuse to [the child] about something going on at home and that they had to go home early with him.”
The mother said she reluctantly agreed so as not to frighten the child, and said she would book the earliest flight home. She said she flew back to Ireland the next day and went straight to her ex’s house to take the child home, but he refused.
‘I SOON REALISED HE HAD IT ALL PLANNED’
“I couldn’t believe what was happening. I went to the gardai in shock and they said it was a family court matter and their hands were tied,” she said.
The woman also learned that her former partner had taken out a safety order against her without her knowing, alleging she was being mentally abusive.
When the case came before the family courts a few days later, the mother said she was confident the child would be returned to her care, but she was left “astonished” when the judge ordered the child should remain with the father until the full hearing.
“Without hearing any of the facts, other than him saying he made a welfare report to local police, the judge said my child was to stay with him until there was a full hearing. I was given two hours of access on a Saturday,” said the devastated mother.
The hearing was to be held the following month, however more than a year has now passed.
TD CRITICAL OF IN-CAMERA RULE
Ms Horrigan-Lehane identified two central concerns arising from the case.
Firstly, whether due diligence had been carried out in regard to the father’s previous conviction and whether any relevant safeguarding concerns were properly brought to the court’s attention and considered.
Secondly, whether a fair hearing had taken place and whether the mother had a meaningful opportunity to present her account and relevant evidence before an interim decision was made.
“The parties, whether it be male or female, must have a right to speak,” she said.
Independent TD Paul Gogarty said that the case reflected the “serious questions that campaigning groups and elected representatives have been raising about how the daily court system operates.”
The Dublin Mid-West TD said that the case raises questions about the ‘in-camera’ rule that means family court proceedings are held in private rather than in open court.
Deputy Gogarty told the Mail on Sunday that he had raised the issue of the controversial in-camera rule and the related secrecy around family court proceedings with the Taoiseach last week.
“Best practice in England and Wales has shown that you can abolish the in-camera rule and still protect anonymity,” he said.