Divorce in a Cold Climate

The recession is well and truly upon us and its effect is being felt in every aspect of life in Ireland. Its impact is also being felt in a very significant way in the family law courts where the dramatic downturn in the economy and in asset values has resulted in an increasing number of people turning to the courts for assistance when they cannot meet their financial obligations arising from a separation or divorce. This has created a new set of problems for the courts to deal with because since the introduction of the judicial separation legislation in 1989 and divorce in 1997 the Courts are for the first time having to grapple with family law in the context of a severe recession.

So under what circumstances do the courts have the jurisdiction to deal with such situations? If the parties have resolved matters in the context of a separation, whether by Deed of Separation or by judicial separation, then there is a forum available to them to revisit matters and that is to do so at divorce. In other words, it is open to the parties to issue divorce proceedings after they have been living apart for four years and in the context of those proceedings the parties can ask the court to revisit any previous agreement or court order.

However, what options are available if a divorce has already been granted to the parties? Unlike a separation, a divorce cannot be simply agreed between the parties and can only be granted by a court. A court will grant a divorce either in terms of the settlement agreed between the parties or, if no agreement can be reached, by imposing orders on the parties after a full hearing of the case. The question then arises as to whether the courts are entitled to review a divorce order at a later date if the financial circumstances of one of the parties deteriorates.

The answer is that section 22 of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 entitles the court to vary certain types of orders granted at divorce but not all types of orders. Orders relating to maintenance, lump sums payable by instalments (where certain instalments remain unpaid) and certain types of property adjustment orders can be varied by the court if the court “considers it proper to do so having regard to any change in circumstances of the case and to any new evidence”.

However there are other kinds of orders that cannot be varied under section 22. For example, a simple lump sum order (ie a once off lump sum payment rather than a payment by instalments) cannot be varied. Further, the wording of section 22 does not give a court the jurisdiction to vary a simple property adjustment order, for example the transfer by one spouse of his or her interest in a property to the other spouse.

So is there anything that a party to a divorce can do to vary an order granted at divorce which does not fall within the ambit of section 22?  In the recent case of O’C v O’C the High Court had to deal with such a situation. In this case the financial circumstances of the husband had deteriorated significantly since the conclusion of the case to the extent that he was now unable to comply with his obligations under the order, in particular the transfer of certain properties to the wife. The husband sought to reopen the whole case and sought from the court new orders to reflect the current financial circumstances of the parties.  Ms Justice Dunne refused to do so. However, Ms Justice Dunne did make a further property adjustment order on the family home and instead of the family home being transferred to the husband (as per the original order) a new order was made under which it was transferred to the wife.

In refusing to reopen the case Ms Justice Dunne upheld the general rule that the courts would not revisit court orders, especially orders formalising terms of settlement negotiated between the parties where such terms of settlement were freely entered into at arms length by parties who had received proper legal advice. However, Dunne J said that applications to vary or to set aside terms of settlement would be entertained in certain circumstances. In this regard she stated that in order for an application to vary to be successful new unforeseen events must have occurred since the making of the order that invalidated the basis on which the order had been made so that an appeal would be certain or very likely to proceed if an appeal had been made at the time the order was granted. Further, the Judge stated that the new events should have occurred within a relatively short time after the making of the order.

The upshot of the above is that the court set a relatively high threshold on a person seeking to vary an order granted at divorce which does not come within the ambit if section 22. In this case Dunne J noted that the husband’s difficulties were not so much a new event as the continuation of an existing trend and the husband failed in his application to set aside the settlement. The case seems to suggest that where financial difficulties were not wholly unforeseeable at the time of a settlement, particularly a recent one, it will be difficult to succeed with an application based on those financial difficulties.

This begs the obvious question of where this leaves the spouse who was to receive, for example, a lump sum which cannot now be paid. In other words what happens if, for example, a husband cannot comply with an order to pay a lump sum to his former wife but yet does not meet the criteria set out above to allow him to request the court to vary the order? Such a situation leaves the wife in a very unsatisfactory position. Her husband may genuinely not have the money to pay the lump sum but there may not be any point in bringing him back to court to have the order enforced. The order will remain in place in any event and it may be that in such circumstances the wife may have to bide her time until the husband’s financial position recovers, if at all.

Justin

Keeping Your Sanity in a Separation

Separation and Divorce are traumatic life events and an extremely stressful time for those going through a relationship breakdown, especially when children are involved. Although obviously everybody’s circumstances are unique, set out below are some helpful tips for people who are about to go through a separation:

It will be difficult. Don’t underestimate the rollercoaster of emotions you will have to deal with, even if it is your decision to end the marriage. You will be required to make life changing decisions in relation to your future financial security and, possibly, your relationship with your children. Keep in mind also that matters may take longer to resolve than you first think, particularly if you are at loggerheads and communication has broken down.

Be careful about moving out of the family home. Moving out may be the wrong thing to do from a tactical point of view. On the other hand, it might be the right thing to do from the point of view of peace of mind. Take advice before you make this decision.

If you have children, try to resolve arguments over them without involving the lawyers. You and your spouse will have to work together to meet the needs of your children long after you have parted from your Solicitors, so try to keep them out of it.

Try to resolve disputes over the division of contents of the home between yourselves. Don’t let things get out of perspective. It is usually cheaper to replace an item you’re arguing over than to fight about it through your solicitors.

Make sure you get early legal advice, particularly if there is a jurisdictional issue at stake. It may be that more than one country could have jurisdiction. It is therefore essential that you seek advice as soon as possible – timing will be key when it comes to where you issue your proceedings. Different jurisdictions deal with finances in very different ways so it is important to get it right.

If you move abroad, you can’t necessarily take the children with you. Children cannot be taken out of the jurisdiction without the consent of both parents or the permission of the Court. If you pack up and leave with the children to another country, you may be guilty of a criminal offence and could also be in contravention of the Hague Convention.

Every penny you spend on lawyers shrinks the marital pot you’re fighting over. Separation can be expensive, both in terms of time and money. An amicable separation, including the resolution of the financial issues, may still take a number of months to conclude. A fully contested Judicial Separation or Divorce in which all financial matters are disputed may have serious cost implications depending on the complexity of the case and could take 18 months to get to trial. Don’t flitter away the pot. Legal costs can quickly mount up with needless correspondence passing between Solicitors.

Try to keep hostility to a minimum. The law does not apportion blame and it is only in exceptional circumstances that misconduct is taken into account. Therefore don’t write aggressive or insulting letters or text messages; they will only be shown to the Solicitors who will spend more of your money sorting out the repercussions.

Spend time finding the right Solicitor. You will need to get on with your Solicitor. Also, and very importantly, don’t judge your Solicitor on how much he or she charges per hour; an experienced family law Solicitor who works swiftly to cut to the chase will be more cost effective in the long run then a lawyer who charges a lower rate but may not have the same experience.

Your Solicitor may not be the best person to solve some relationship breakdown issues. Your Solicitor should always be supportive, but there are some issues, for example emotional or relationship issues, where it may be more appropriate to consult a different professional, such as a counsellor or family therapist.

Be open with your Solicitor. Your Solicitor will be able to carry out damage limitation if he or she is aware of all the facts. However if skeletons are pulled from the cupboard in front of the Judge when it is too late for your advisors to deal with them it may severely prejudice your case.

Finally, try to maintain a sensible perspective and a sense of humour. Life goes on after separation or divorce and things will get better once the separation process has been finalised.

Justin Spain

Boy (13) allowed to remain with father in Ireland

THE SON of divorced parents who had refused to return to England to live with his mother following a holiday with his father in Ireland may remain here, the High Court has ruled.

The mother of the boy (13) had brought proceedings under the Hague Convention on child abduction seeking an order requiring his return to England and claiming he would have better schooling and a better life there.

The parents married in 1995 in Britain, separated in 2005 and divorced in 2008. The Irish father returned here with all three of their children – two boys and a girl – with the mother’s agreement. No formal custody or access agreement was put in place but the mother maintained contact with the children.

The girl later went to live with her mother but the boys remained here with the father until 2010, when the younger boy also went to live with his mother. He said he did so because he was promised a better life there but, in July 2011, after a two-week holiday with his father, said he wished to remain here and did not return to England.

A clinical psychologist who interviewed the boy said she was satisfied his views about wanting to stay were his own and genuine. He was well capable of forming and expressing his own views and had done so without pressure from others.

Mr Justice Michael Peart ruled, after balancing this “sufficiently mature” boy’s “genuinely held” objections to return to England against the aims and objectives of the Hague Convention, that this was one of those exceptional cases where a child should not be returned to his country of habitual residence which, in July 2011, was Britain.

While article 12 of the convention required immediate return of a child wrongfully removed, article 13 permitted the court some discretion. In this case, of “particular exceptionality” was the fact the boy had seven years of living with his father and of attending school here with which to rationally compare the 12 months between 2010 and 2011 living with his mother in England, the judge said.

There was some dispute whether the mother made clear to the boy, when he came to live with her in July 2010, that he must do so until the age of 16 so as to “settle” him, he also noted. While he chose to go to England then, he had told his father he did so after indications either by his mother or his sister that his life would be better there and he could return to Ireland if things did not work out.

There was limited evidence his father was short of money as he was attending college and in such circumstances, the promise of a better life in England may have had “some superficial attraction”.

The fact the boy’s decision in July 2010 to live with his mother changed his country of habitual residence overnight, given the “settled purpose” of that move, should not deprive him of the opportunity of changing his mind as long as he was not doing so on “a whim”.

It was not contrary to the purposes or terms of the Hague Convention to allow the boy to change his mind before it was “too late”.

It was “increasingly the case” a child of sufficient maturity would be heard on such applications as this; this would be done sometimes via interviews with experts, such as the psychologist in this case.

Mr Justice Peart also stressed there was no evidence the return of the boy to his mother would expose him to psychological harm. Just because a child expressed a wish not to be returned, the court did not have to accede to that wish, he added.

It was clear from the psychologist’s report that this boy, while immature in the sense of not being used to making serious decisions for himself, had sufficient maturity to form and express his own views and to have them seriously considered, he said.

By Mary Carolan – Irish Times | Fri, Jan 13, 2012 | Link to Irish Times Article

A raw deal for unmarried dads

Sir, – I agree with John Waters (Opinion, January 6th) when he says that “unmarried Irish fathers remain deeply ignorant of their legal situation”. Treoir works to inform unmarried parents of their legal rights. Given the increasing number of unmarried parents in Ireland, this is indeed a daunting task.

Our experience in the National Information Service for unmarried parents is that unmarried parents assume where the father’s name is on the child’s birth certificate that the father acquires guardianship rights in respect of his child. This is not so. A father has to take action to become guardian. He can either sign an agreement with the mother (but alas, there is no central register for such agreements) or he can apply to the local district court to be appointed guardian.

The Law Reform Commission has issued its report on legal aspects of family relationships which contains significant recommendations for the improvement of guardianship rights for unmarried fathers. Though these recommendations may take some time to come into affect it is a step in the right direction. – Yours, etc,

MARGOT DOHERTY,

Assistant Chief Executive

Treoir,

IFSC, Dublin 1.

Margot Doherty Letter to the – Irish Times | Tue, Jan 10, 2012 | Link to Irish Times Article

The Implication of an Inheritance in Separation

When a couple separate an issue that frequently arises is the issue of inherited or gifted assets. Usually a spouse is anxious to know if inherited assets will be treated as part of the marital assets or whether these assets will be ringfenced as the assets of that spouse only.

The answer is it depends on the circumstances of the case. The legislation does not specifically deal with the issue of how an inheritance should be treated. However, the legislation does allow a Judge to take inherited assets into account in deciding what is proper provision for both spouses following a separation and a Judge has enormous discretion in this regard. So what is the practise of the Courts in dealing with inherited assets?

The leading Irish case in this area was the case of C v C. The main asset in this case was a landed estate which had been inherited by the husband and which had been in his family for generations. The gross value of the assets were over €30 million and the wife was seeking to have the manor house transferred to her. Mr Justice O’Higgins refused to transfer the house to the wife and said:

“The Applicant (husband) has a strong claim to the house. Firstly he is the sole owner. Secondly he has family connections with it for a very long time. Thirdly the Respondent (wife) did not contribute either directly or indirectly to its acquisition as the house was inherited.”

The husband in this case had an after tax income of €750,000 and the Judge awarded the wife a lump sum of €3.3 million to purchase a family home for herself and the children and maintenance of €320,000 per annum for herself and the children. Therefore in “big money” cases the Court is unlikely to give a spouse a significant proportion of the inherited assets of the other spouse, particularly if the inheritance was quite recent.

But what if the case is not a “big money” case? Here the main determining factor is usually the respective needs of the parties and in such cases therefore the Court is more likely to take inherited assets into account when deciding what is proper provision each party. However, a Court must take account of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the recent case of GvG in which the Supreme Court stated that inherited assets should not be considered to be assets of the marriage.

The date when the assets were inherited is also a factor – if the inheritance was received a long time ago it is more likely to be included in the assets to be divided between the parties.

It is therefore important to take advice in relation to inherited assets when a relationship breaks down or indeed when contemplating making a will or getting married.

Fathers pay price when mothers take children

DESPITE ONE-THIRD of births occurring in non-marital relationships, unmarried Irish fathers remain deeply ignorant of their legal situation.

Under Irish law, such fathers have no automatic right to the day-to-day care of their children (“custody”) or to a say in the upbringing of their children (“guardianship”). What they have is the right to apply to a court, which may then extend rights of guardianship and custody according to the nature of the relationship between the child and the father, a matter almost invariably dictated by the attitude and behaviour of the gatekeeper-mother.

Although mischievous agents propose that the high numbers of Irish unmarried fathers neglecting to apply for guardianship is evidence of indifference, the fact is that many fathers, reluctant to initiate legal proceedings that might create a conflict where none exists, tend to leave well alone.

This leads to extreme difficulties when mothers abduct children to other jurisdictions and fathers find themselves bereft of legal standing.

Almost all European countries now make legal provision for the concept of the “de facto family” – which extends legal recognition in situations in which unmarried parents and their children have lived together in quasi-marital situations. This can enable an unmarried father who has no formal guardianship order to invoke the Hague Convention in the event that his child is abducted. Irish law is noticeably out of step in the recognition of such “inchoate rights”.

The man in the street may attribute this circumstance to oversight. Alas, it arises from the ideological outlook of the Irish State, which is determined to withhold from unmarried fathers anything but the most minimal recognition forced upon it by international law.

The lay person, too, might surmise that, all things being equal, the objective of the Irish State will always be to strive towards just and equitable resolutions, subject only to whatever legal impediments may arise.

Alas, in abduction situations where the abductor is the mother, such an assumption would be mistaken.

In fact, the pattern of behaviour by the Irish central authority in these matters – ie the Department of Justice – is to turn its back on fathers whose children have been abducted, even when the destination country is reluctant to accept jurisdiction.

This policy became clear over the past 18 months, in a case arising from the refusal of a mother to bring her two children back to Ireland after a summer holiday in New York. For six years the father had lived in Ireland with his children, in virtually every respect as though married to the mother. In August 2010, the mother told him she and their two children would remain in New York, where she was moving in with a man she had met on Facebook.

The children had been born in New York, which meant that the father was their legal guardian under US law. He had the right to apply to a New York court, but felt that to do so would be to acquiesce in what had happened.

He wished to have the matter adjudicated in Ireland, where his children had lived almost all their lives. He approached the Department of Justice but was told that, since he did not have guardianship here, there was no legal recourse under the Hague Convention.

Proceedings were initiated in New York by the mother, while the father began seeking guardianship under Irish law. In November 2010, he was granted a guardianship order. Because this application was initiated within a statutory six-month period stipulated by New York law – in effect confirming the children were for legal purposes still habitually resident in Ireland – and since the father continued to reside here, the New York court ruled that the case should be determined by the Irish courts.

All that was required was for an Irish court to issue a temporary custody order in favour of the father, and the New York court could have ordered the return of the children here.

The next step was to persuade the Irish court to do the decent thing. Three hearings, in August, October and November 2011, were adjourned in turn because the judge was away. Although it was implicit in the New York decision that, by issuing a guardianship order, the Irish court had already accepted jurisdiction, the Irish judge refused to communicate with his counterpart in New York.

Instead, in the end, he wrote to the New York court handing over jurisdiction, unwittingly confirming that, contrary to the assertions of the Department of Justice, the Irish court already had jurisdiction. Thus, in December, this Irish father was forced to surrender to the jurisdiction of an American court.

These Irish proceedings, involving 12 court appearances and nine different judges over 15 months, cost this father more than €20,000.

For years I have been meeting men like this, trying to help them deal with the inscrutable processes that “legal advice” forbids me from describing in the only terms I can adequately and reasonably describe them.

I observe with dismay that things are growing worse, not just in the treatment of such men and their children, but even more ominously in the studied avoidance of these matters by other journalists who make much of calling authority to account except here, where the sleep of justice is more implacable than anywhere else.

By John Waters – Irish Times | Fri, Jan 6, 2012 | Link to Irish Times Article

Supreme Court strikes down family law orders as excessive

Neutral citation (2011) IESC 40

Supreme Court

Judgment was delivered on October 19th, 2011, by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Susan Denham, Mr Justice John Murray, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, Mr Justice Nial Fennelly and Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan concurring.

Judgment

A High Court judgment containing various orders in a family law case, in particular an order of €1 million to buy a second house and €600,000 cash sum, was overturned and the case was remitted to the High Court for proper provision to be ordered.

Background

The case concerned an appeal by the husband against a series of High Court orders in a divorce case, which followed a separation agreement containing a “full and final settlement” clause.

The weight to be given to this clause, and the meaning of “proper provision” in the 1996 Family Law (Divorce) Act were considered.

The couple were married in 1977 and lived in a house inherited by the husband. The wife brought £3,000 in savings to the marriage. They had no children and they ran a farm and garage. The husband began to pursue property development, building and selling houses.

The couple separated in 1995 and entered a separation agreement in August 1996, under which the husband agreed to pay the wife £100 a week in maintenance, reduced to £50 after two years. He also gave her a house in the estate he had developed and a lump sum of £70,000.

In 2004 the maintenance was increased to €1,200 a month, pending a hearing of the divorce application. This was further increased to €2,500 a month by the High Court.

The wife claimed she did not enjoy the same lifestyle as her husband and that she incurred debts until the maintenance was increased.

She brought a claim for divorce and that “proper provision” be made for her under the 1996 Act.

In granting the divorce in March 2009, Mr Justice Henry Abbott made a number of orders making further provision for the wife, including an order directing the husband to buy her an annuity worth €600,000; the payment of €300,000 into a pension fund for her; the payment of €100,000 towards her legal costs; maintenance of €54,000 a year until the sum was paid by the annuity; the payment of €1 million so that she could buy a second house and the payment of a further €600,000 in a lump sum; and a payment of half of the balance of her legal costs.

The husband argued that the orders imposed an unreasonable and unfair financial burden on him, amounting to a confiscation of assets, and that it unfairly fettered his use and control of his assets to the detriment of his long-term financial security and business activity.

He also argued that the High Court judge failed to have sufficient regard to the “full and final” clause in the separation settlement.

His lawyers argued that the court had embarked on a redistributive financial process and that it was not the function of the court to reopen the issue of proper provision, but rather to assess the previous provision in the light of current circumstances and, if it was inadequate, correct it.

Decision

The first issue examined was the weight to be given to the deed of separation and what would happen if there had been a change in the circumstances of one or other of the parties.

The Supreme Court pointed out that previous judgments had stated that the Irish law did not establish a right to a “clean break”, but that this was a legitimate aspiration and the objective of seeking certainty and stability was desirable.

Changed circumstances that could lead to a revisiting of a separation agreement could include illness. However, if a person achieved wealth after the separation, and this was unconnected to any joint project of the spouses, there was no automatic right to an increase in the financial provision for the other spouse.

The standard of living of a dependent spouse should be commensurate with that enjoyed when the marriage ended. Assets inherited should not be treated as assets obtained by both parties in a marriage.

At the time of the High Court hearing, the husbands assets were worth about €21 million.

The original separation agreement envisaged the wife’s needs tapering off and her supporting herself.

However, she became ill and could not work and used up her lump sum. Therefore there was no error in the High Court ordering an increase in maintenance.

However, the overall amount of maintenance and financial provision was excessive and an error, in particular the provision of €1 million for an extra house, as she had been given suitable accommodation in the separation agreement.

The lump sum of €600,000 was also excessive.

The standard of living of a spouse, when the other party has subsequently achieved further wealth, is not entitled to be elevated on that basis. Here the husband did increase his wealth after the separation, which was not relevant to the proper provision of the wife, unless there had been a substantial change in her needs.

In this case her needs were met by her increased maintenance and provision for a pension, which should not be finally determined by the Supreme Court in the light of the dramatically changed values of his assets.

The case should therefore be remitted to the High Court, the judgment said.

The full judgment is on courts.ie

avid Hegarty SC and Siobhán Gallagher BL, instructed by Micheál Glynn and Co, Limerick, for the appellant; Inge Clissman and Rita Considine BL, instructed by Michael Houlihan and Partners, Ennis, for the respondent.

The Irish Times – Mon, Nov 7, 2011 | Link to article

The marriage break-up: ‘Doubt, panic and loneliness’

The Problem

James (45) was married for 15 years but his relationship “ground to a halt” last year. He has three children with his wife, and over the past few years, the strain of debt, unemployment, illness, depression, loss of intimacy “and probably hope” caused friction, and ultimately the break-up.

He concedes the split was also caused by his wife’s inability to fully trust him after an affair that happened several years before. “We both worked very hard to make the relationship work, but called it a day mostly for the sake of the children. They need an atmosphere free of tension,” he says. “I am depressed, which I suppose is normal, but it is hard to wake up alone without the children. Some days it is unbearable.”

He believes he “may or may not be” addicted to the “first rush of love” and admits that he “seeks solutions in the arms and beds of strangers”. He says he “loves women, needs intimacy, needs to make love”. He wonders whether he is afraid of being completely alone.

“People lose themselves in alcohol, work or hobbies . . . I like sex. I regard it as healthy and normal. Other men my age like golf, GAA, the company of other men, football trips. I don’t. I am a loner who prefers the company of intelligent women. However I seem to attract damaged goods, women who have been abused or beaten by parents . . . I wonder why this is?”

James is currently living with a “very supportive” relative and chasing work all over the country while he waits to find permanent accommodation. “The day we moved from the family home I started crying and I have found it very hard to stop,” he says. He is lonely and misses being part of a family. On a positive note, the couple has managed to salvage a friendship from the relationship which feels “genuine, if fragile”. He says the children are happy although his eldest child is confused slightly by the new living arrangements.

He would appreciate advice on how to deal with the “doubt, panic and loneliness” caused by his situation and on how to handle his desire to rush straight into other relationships. “I am a very good father and my ex is a very good mother. I guess we are trying to figure out how to be friends after all these years, but I think we will manage. We are both selfless, and we love our kids too much to make a mess of it,” he says.

James is a daily meditator which he says helps. He has also been in “talk therapy” most of his life, or at least when he could afford it. He comes from a family of therapists and mental-health professionals, a background that has made him “somewhat cynical” when it comes to professionals who offer counsel. He is healthy, fit and says he has retained his sense of humour despite his personal circumstances.

The Advice

The Marriage and Family Therapist

Owen Connolly

I have met men like James many times in my counselling centre. I always ask the questions “As a young boy, were you a sensitive, cautious child. Did you have a close relationship with your mother? Was your father an important person in your life?”

The influence of a mother is to make the perfect prince, but the fther’s role can often be to prepare him for being a king.

If that has not been part of James’s experience, he might be stuck in the prince state, expecting to give himself over to the woman, expecting her to be responsible for his happiness. James comes across to me as an adult child, physically and intellectually grown-up but emotionally still a child.

James, you may present yourself as confident, good-humoured and charming, but underneath you may still be the sensitive cautious young boy wanting to be minded. You are likely to be attracted to strong women with that in mind, but when she shows her needs, thinking that this confident man will empathise and understand, the prince does not know how to cope and considers that it is a sign of weakness on her part. Hence your commentary on women being “damaged goods”. Often, women who have been hurt in childhood will present themselves as strong and confident just as you appear to do. Trauma of any kind can or may be responsible for this condition. You’ll find that a small number of sessions with a good trauma specialist would do a lot more for you than a year of talk therapy and meditation. I can understand your cynicism towards counsellors given your family background. Those who are close to you and well meaning are not always the best people to go to for advice.

I would have confidence in your fathering role as you are likely to give to your children what may have been missing in your own childhood. Make the most of being able to jointly parent the children. As a sensitive man under the outward confident one, you are aware of the significance of having their intimacy needs met. You know the importance of the unconditional love that can only come from a parent. They need to be comforted and encouraged so their confidence can be built on a foundation of truth.

They need to know that they are priceless, special and loved, just as you are, but may not believe it.

* Owen Connolly is a consultant psychologist and marriage and family therapist in private practice in Stillorgan, Co Dublin. See counsellor.ie

The Career Coach

Jane Downes

James, I need to say straight out that perhaps the single most important part of my job as a career coach is to know the difference between coaching and counselling. It would be unprofessional – and presumptuous – of me to offer you advice on your issues around sex, intimacy and relationships. Not that I don’t sympathise hugely with you on account of your struggles in these areas, just that I need to be careful not to overstep the ethical mark here.

That said, the career coach in me cannot help but notice the key role played in your story by work- and finance-related difficulties.

Debt and unemployment are no joke at the best of times. To have struggled with both at a time of relationship breakdown must have been positively hellish. And now, to be chasing scraps of work up and down the country while trying to get your head around a personal landscape that has altered almost beyond recognition – well, I wouldn’t wish that kind of pressure on my worst enemy. You must feel like your head is going to explode.

Now I cannot speak directly to your heartbreaking family situation, nor to your feelings of isolation and inadequacy. But I can urge you not to allow these problems to block your problem-solving ability in the career and financial area. You need to split up “I’m lonely and broke”, into two sentences: “I’m lonely. I’m broke.” Otherwise you risk being overwhelmed by a generalised feeling of helplessness. And my hunch is that you’re not going to be in a safe enough place to really face up to the “lonely” bit until you’ve addressed the “broke” bit. When we’re living hand-to-mouth, as so many people in Ireland currently are, the world feels like a horribly Darwinian place. It’s very hard to let go into gentleness, intimacy, trust and love when you can hear the wolf scratching at the door.

So all this energy you’ve been so understandably investing in feelings of sorrow and anxiety – you need to re-channel it into the task of designing a compelling future for yourself on the career front. Like a lot of 45-year-olds, you probably feel ancient in career terms. But you’re not. It’s still all to play for, believe me.

As a first step towards moving from crisis management to vocational renewal, I would like you to make an appointment with me at your earliest convenience for a free career coaching session. Let’s see if we can’t turn this thing around.

* Jane Downes is the owner of Clearview Coaching Group and author of The Career Book- Help for the Restless Realist. See clearviewcoachgroup.com

The Psychologist

Allison Keating

You have had a very difficult time, James. Life has taken it toll with debt, unemployment and your break-up. These life events cause a lot of stress, strain, and have a major impact on our reserves of hope, which unfortunately often leads to a sense of helplessness and isolation.

Perhaps this is why you crave the initial passionate intimacy but real whole-hearted living means that to truly connect with someone you need to share your vulnerabilities. This is real intimacy – to allow the other person to see the real you.

It is interesting and yet somewhat unfortunate that it seems that you are looking for the passion and yet vulnerability in the women you are seeking comfort from. If you are not sharing about your own vulnerability then it still leaves you disconnected. You may feel in control, but ultimately it must feel lonely.

You say that you crave intimacy, and yet I wonder do you really understand what intimacy is? One part of intimacy is the sexual and passionate aspect, but another side is the ability to form an attachment whereby you feel connected and cared for by the other person.

The delicate balance to feel securely attached is to be able to maintain interdependence, feel connected and that you belong to the relationship.

You say that you have been in talk therapy most of your life. Perhaps you need to find a more solutions-focused approach that allows you to look at the psycho dynamics of your relationships past and present.

Psychological insight through therapy allows you to see into your patterns that are not working for you. To allow you to have a perceivable gap between it happening again and to have the foresight to recognise your reaction to certain life events before it is too late.

The core of this is what is going on for you? There is a lot of personal conflict. You say that you love women, but can you really connect emotionally in a dual-functioning and emotionally satisfying manner? Even though it sounds like you are in great pain, rather than rush into the next “fix”, ask yourself the questions “what do you need?” and “what do you want?”.

If you experience some sexual impulsiveness it might be worth engaging in the process of examining what emotions you are trying to recapture in sexual experiences?

Best of luck, and I hope that you venture on this inner journey of self-discovery and perhaps this could be done in a supportive, empathic and effective therapeutic setting.

* Allison Keating is a registered psychologist and the director of the BWell Clinic in Malahide, Co Dublin. See bwell.ie

The Relationship Counsellor

Lisa O’Hara

There are many reasons why people have affairs but usually at the root of them is fear, hurt and/or anger: fear that if you let yourself get too close to someone, you will become too vulnerable; hurt because you somehow feel rejected or unloved; and anger because your partner cannot or will not meet your needs. Sex does provide an element of comfort and relief when we are distressed. It can help us to feel connected to another and not entirely alone. It is also the most intense expression of physical intimacy between a couple and an important form of communication because when they feel physically close, they are often at their most open with each other.

When a person hasn’t learned to handle their more difficult feelings, they are more likely to engage in destructive behaviours such as drinking, drugs or infidelity in order to numb those feelings.

Unfortunately, this can affect relationships adversely as anxiety becomes their constant companion. It removes the trust that is the bedrock of a relationship and crucial to the survival of that relationship through difficult times.

James is now left with some of the feelings that may have driven him to have an affair in the first place, and it is important that he addresses these as honestly as he can; otherwise he will be led by these feelings to seek a new relationship, rather than a desire to be with someone because he actually likes, respects and values them.

As he is into meditation practices, a particularly helpful way to gently explore his feelings might to be to try a “focusing” meditation, which he can do on his own, or by finding a focusing therapist who can help him get started (see focusingireland.org).

He will continue to have a co-parenting relationship with his ex-wife and he recognises the importance of this for his family. Many people get caught up in their own pain not realising that the children are struggling inside, even if they seem okay. It’s important to reinforce the fact that they are still a family, even if the couple are no longer together.

* Lisa O’Hara is a therapist with counselling agency Relationships Ireland (formerly the Marriage and Relationship Counselling Services). See relationshipsireland.com

James’s Reaction

“Owen you have NOT met many men like me. You lost me (briefly) with that generalisation. Moreover, the ‘prince’ and ‘king’ stuff is for my four-year-old. However, kudos for perceiving that I am and will be a good father. I do not require a trauma specialist but some of the women I’ve met do. I take your point about ‘strong’ women hiding under masks. I perceive a committed practitioner, and a degree of (hippy) wisdom. Thanks.

“I like Jane’s honesty. And when I move into my own space I will call. Interesting and enormously revealing that she was the only one to offer her services free.”

“Allison was well-intended but vaguely off-putting due to her baseless presumption that I do not know how to ‘connect’. I was married for 15 years and faithful for 14, despite my ex having a debilitating illness.

“Lisa’s response highlights the pitfalls of this experiment. It really is hard without a face-to-face meeting. Again, however, there is an almost Patrician attitude to sex and f***ing. That said, I perceive an experienced practitioner; as she correctly points out, my children are, and must remain, the focus. I could talk to this (seemingly wise) woman relatively easily, but have more pressing things to spend my money on: feeding my kids. However, thanks.

Tips for all coping with separation

This is a significant loss in your life even if you wanted it to end. The grief feelings that come up with the loss can be overwhelming, even though they are quite natural. If you feel stuck it might be time to consider getting professional help, such as counselling.

Choose your confidantes wisely. You may be upset and not know what to do next. A wise person will know that you need to be heard without necessarily taking sides or having the answers, unless they are an expert in the area.

Try to find out as much information as you can about how the separation might affect you, your family and your resources. Write down a list of things you want to know more about so that if you are going to a professional, you are well prepared.

It is an upsetting time for all the family, and children are struggling to adjust to a new structure. Routines may be cast aside, but it is precisely at this time that as much structure and order as possible are maintained for everyone’s sake. It gives you a rock to hang onto when you’re all feeling at sea.

Be realisticabout the time it takes to move on from separation. It is often much longer than you could ever imagine.

– Lisa O’Hare

When a relationship ends: Surviving the emotional rollercoaster of separation,by Lisa O’Hara will be published by Orpen Press in October

By Roisin Ingle – Irish Times | Tue, Aug 30, 2011 | Link to Irish Times Article

Maintenance reduced in order to reflect changed circumstances

The amount a man must pay to his former spouse and their two children was reduced to €3,000 a month because of a reduction in his income.

H -v- D

Neutral Citation (2011) IEHC 233

High Court

Judgment was delivered on June 7th, 2011, by Ms Justice Mary Irvine.

Judgment

The levels of maintenance payable by a man to his former wife and their two children were reduced to the amount of €3,000 a month set in 2005 because of a reduction in his income. The payments had increased since 2005 in line with the consumer price index. The man was ordered to supply his wife with documentary evidence of his income on an annual basis.

Background

The couple were married in 1998 and had twin daughters who were 10 years old when the application was made. The marriage broke down when the children were infants, and the couple obtained a divorce in December 2005.

Under its terms, the applicant husband paid €3,000 a month, €1,000 for each child and €1,000 for the respondent wife. In November 2010, it was altered so that three-quarters went for the children and one quarter for the wife. The sum was adjusted in line with the consumer price index.

The husband was seeking to have the level of maintenance reduced on the basis that his income had been reduced from €90,000 net a year, and by the imposition of Government levies.

The overall effect left him with a net income of €86,000 for 2009 and €73,000 for 2010, allowing for a tax-avoidance payment of €17,000. His take-home pay slip showed a monthly income of €5,221.45, which would amount to €62,650 this year, and he also expected to receive a bonus of between €5,000 and €10,000.

Ms Justice Irvine calculated the bonus would be €7,500 after tax, pointing out that the bonuses were €22,980 in 2009 and €18,494 in 2008, although there had been none in 2010.

She also said his net income was less than any of the last seven months in 2009. Therefore she would proceed on the basis that his income for the year would be €70,157, plus the bonus. She also pointed out he had €58,000 in the bank, which he could dip into until his bonus was paid.

Decision

“Even if it be the case that the court accepts that the applicant’s income may have reduced by 21 per cent since the original order was made, that does not entitle him to an automatic proportionate reduction in his maintenance payments unless he can demonstrate that the maintenance so reduced would be sufficient to meet the reasonable ongoing needs of the respondent and their two children,” Ms Justice Irvine said.

The respondent had no savings and had done all she could to reduce her outgoings. She had had difficulty in paying her mortgage and the applicant was of great assistance to her here. All the facts suggested she was struggling on her present maintenance.

She added it was significant that, as a result of an injunction by the applicant, she was obliged to live in Dublin so that the applicant could play an active role in parenting the children. This meant the wife had to rear her daughters as a single parent in a city where she had no family support whatsoever.

Her parents and siblings all live in Cork, where she would much prefer to live, and if she had been able to do so, she could have been able to work full-time with the support of her family and become financially independent of the applicant. She had difficulty in meeting work commitments when one or other child was sick and she had difficulty finding and paying for childcare during the school holidays.

Ms Justice Irvine said she therefore rejected the suggestion made on behalf of the applicant that the respondent could be working either part time or full time, especially while the children were in primary school. “It is all very well to say she should get help [when a child is sick], but where do you get it when your child has a temperature at 7am and you have to be at work by 9am if you have no partner or family to call upon?”

While the respondent was very well qualified, in the present economic climate it could not be assumed she could walk into a job tomorrow, as she had had practically no work experience for the past 10 years. There was also the problem of childcare.

She also rejected a suggestion from the wife that the applicant should take in a lodger or forego contributing to his pension.

Having considered all the evidence, she said she was satisfied there should be some amelioration in the maintenance payable under the December 2005 court order, notwithstanding that this would impose a degree of hardship on the wife.

She considered the appropriate maintenance was €3,000 a month – €750 for the wife and the balance divided between the children, subject to consumer price index adjustment from June 2012.

She said it was important that the wife could monitor with accuracy the husband’s income over the next few years so she could seek to renegotiate an increased maintenance payment if his salary increased above what formed the basis for the current order.

She therefore made an order that on January 14th each year he furnish his wife with copies of all wage slips for the previous year; a copy of his P60 for the previous year; details of any bonus payments due; details and proof of any payment made by him as a tax-avoidance measure in the previous year and a statement from his employer confirming the information provided.

The full judgment is on courts.ie

Paul McCarthy BL, instructed by Heather Lennon solicitors, Dublin 2, for the applicant; the respondent represented herself

Irish Times | Mon, Jul 25, 2011 | Link to Irish Times Article