[ad_1]
A High Court judge has issued an exclusion order against a man whose behavior has had a “more damaging” effect on his ex-wife and children.
Judge Max Barrett said there were reasonable grounds to believe that the safety and well-being of the woman and children required the court to issue the restraining order.
The man had “remarkably” sought to justify beating his wife during their marriage, the judge said. The court had “corrected” him on that, as “there is no excuse for domestic violence.”
The man’s behavior has had an adverse effect on his marriage and children and he has behaved so badly that one of the sons has dissociative identity disorder and they have all been “stressed out,” a phrase that seemed “too mild.” His relationships with his children are “strained.”
The judge said the couple’s daughter had remembered hours of arguing at home, always hearing her father’s voice as the first to get up, and feeling “forever fear” for her mother. When asked by his father about the good times at home, he couldn’t remember when life had been “less than awkward.”
She made the comments in a ruling on the woman’s appeal over aspects of the proper provision orders issued by the Circuit Court in divorce proceedings and seeking an exclusion order.
The judge reversed an order stipulating the sale of the family home once the youngest son turns 18, and the proceeds were split 60/40 between the woman and the man. Instead, he made orders that will cause the house to eventually be transferred to the sole property of the woman, without the need for the man’s consent, once the mortgage is paid off and she has made all of her mortgage payments in the meantime. .
He noted that the man has breached certain orders regarding the payment of alimony and the woman is budgeting on the basis that she will continue to not pay them. The woman, whom the couple had agreed during the marriage to be a homemaker, has accepted a job and believes that as long as she continues in the job, she will be able to meet her full mortgage and other payments, he said.
The judge believed the man had underestimated both his income and savings and made “dubious” claims of impecuniousness. He ordered her to cover half of the children’s education expenses and other support payments, but only if the woman was fired or if circumstances meant she could not continue in employment.
Sense of decency
Both parties represented themselves in court and the judge said he was “taken aback” by the man’s behavior towards the woman, as he had never before seen such a “sustained and bitter” attack from one person to another. The man’s behavior was “impossible” and he seemed, for some reason, to have “lost all sense of decency and decorum” in his dealings with his ex-wife.
The woman, as a human being, regardless of the fact of being the mother of the children she is raising “and raising well,” is a worthy and valuable being, worthy of respect at all times.
The man’s behavior left the court in no doubt about how “hideously unpleasant” life at home must have been when the man was around and what damage his behavior must have done to the woman and children.
The man had time and again at the hearing thrown into an almost incessant “stuck record” tirade typically comprising allegations that Ms A is a liar and is mentally ill when she was neither, the judge said. He also called her a “bunny cauldron,” an insult that further lowered the man in the court’s estimate, and other alleged court officials had been acting in a “grand conspiracy” against him.
The “tirade” also included claims that he was a good father “which, unfortunately, is not confirmed by the evidence.”
[ad_2]