B.C. v P.K.

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Jordan
• Judgment Date: 17 June 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IEHC 432
• Docket Number: [2018 No. 5 M]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 17 June 2020

IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL SEPARATION AND FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT 1989, AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT 1995

BETWEEN

B.C.

APPLICANT

AND

P.K.

RESPONDENT

[2020] IEHC 432

Jordan J.

[2018 No. 5 M]

THE HIGH COURT FAMILY LAW

Consent – Therapeutic care – Costs – Applicant seeking an order dispensing with the consent of the respondent for children to attend with Professor S for the purpose of ongoing therapeutic care – Whether Professor S was precluded from counselling the children

Facts: The applicant father of the children, pursuant to a notice of motion returnable to the 10th February, requested, firstly, that the proceedings be re-entered and, secondly as the substantive relief, an order under s. 11 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 (as amended) dispensing with the consent of the respondent mother for the children to attend with Professor S for the purpose of ongoing therapeutic care as deemed appropriate by Professor S. Professor S was previously involved after an order was made under s. 47 of the Family Law Act 1995 (as amended) and he prepared a report in accordance with that s. 47 court order. The mother was agreeable that the children attend at an appropriate professional for ongoing therapeutic care but she disagreed with Professor S being involved.

Held by the High Court (Jordan J) that there is not a provision in the legislation that would preclude Professor S counselling the children and being involved in their therapeutic care. However, Jordan J found that it is common sense, looking at the facts of this case, that the author of a s. 47 report should distance themselves, himself or herself, from counselling or therapeutic care because to do otherwise could impact upon their independence in terms of executing their role under s. 47.

Jordan J held that he would dismiss the application of the father and, if he had not already done so, make the order re-entering the proceedings. He held that he would refuse the order sought and direct that the parties engage with a view to agreeing an alternative counsellor and that such engagement and the decision in that regard take place within fourteen days. He awarded the costs of defending the application to the respondent mother with an order that those costs be adjudicated in default of agreement.

Application dismissed.

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT OF Mr. Justice Jordan delivered on the 17th day of June 2020

1 This matter comes before me pursuant to a notice of motion returnable to the 10th February last and in which the respondent father of the children requests, firstly, that the proceedings be re-entered and, secondly as the substantive relief, an order under s. 11 of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 (as amended) dispensing with the consent of the applicant for the children, namely, J. and R., to attend with Professor S. for the purpose of ongoing therapeutic care as deemed appropriate by Professor S.

2 The position in relation to the matter is that Professor S. was previously involved after an order was made under s. 47 of the Family Law Act, 1995 (as amended) and he prepared a report in accordance with that s. 47 court order.

3 J. is thirteen years of age and R. is ten years of age. The mother, the respondent to this motion is agreeable that the children attend at an appropriate professional for ongoing therapeutic care but she disagrees with Professor S. being involved.

4 The position in terms of the background is that judicial separation proceedings, as a result of which a decree of judicial separation and ancillary relief were granted, were resolved by a settlement arrived at between the parties and ruled by this Court before Faherty J. on 3rd April, 2019. The Court Order was made at that time and included orders relating to J. and R. (the children) and further orders in respect of custody and access in respect of both of them were agreed and ruled before this Court, Faherty J., on 11th October, 2019. It was in the course of those proceedings that the s. 47 order was made and Professor S. prepared two reports, one on the 19th November, 2018 prior to the Decree and Ancillary Relief Orders, and one on the 18th June, 2019 prior to the most recent court orders concerning access on 11th October, 2019.

5 It is obvious that the applicant and the respondent, the father and the mother, and the children, attended at Professor S. on a number of occasions for the purpose of his preparation of the s. 47 report. The orders which were made in respect of the children in large part reflect the recommendations made by Professor S. in the s. 47 reports. He also recommended an ongoing review mechanism. However, the position is, as averred to by the father in his affidavit sworn on 21st January, 2020, that the ongoing review mechanism advocated for by Professor S. did not form part of the terms of settlement agreed between the parties. It is also important to point out that the father includes in para. 8 of that affidavit an averment at the end which recites as follows:-

“I also acknowledge that the applicant [that is the mother] did not wish to personally engage further with Professor S. but the ongoing reviews with the children with Professor S., the subject of this application, will not involve either your deponent or the applicant albeit I am happy if required to attend with him in the best interests of the...