Court hears woman who has Botox home-delivered is called 'golddigger' by husband's family

The Family Law Court was told that the woman had a shopping addiction, spending 'a fortune on shopping'

Judge Adrian Harris adjourned the case to December to allow Tusla carry out a report into the circumstances of the couple’s children under Section 20 of the Child Care Act. File photo

A woman labelled a "golddigger" by her husband’s family has told a court that she has no interest in money.

At the Family Law Court, the woman denied that she was obsessed with money after solicitor, Mairead Doyle, for her husband said that her husband’s €600,000 in savings is now gone.

Ms Doyle told the court that the woman had a shopping addiction, spending “a fortune on shopping” and the couple lived very well going through the €600,000 that included them purchasing a property.

The woman denied that she had a shopping addiction stating that large sums of money were spent on fertility treatment over three years. She said: "The savings went on fertility treatments.” The woman said that her husband told her if he didn't have children "he would prefer to die".

She said: "Once I had children, he was done with me. I was a means to an end." 

The woman told Ms Doyle: “I am not interested in money.” The woman said she depends now on social welfare.

The couple were in court making cross-applications for Safety Orders against each other. The two have in place temporary Protection Orders against each other pending the determination of the Safety Order applications.

The woman said that her husband’s family dislike her. Asked why by her solicitor, Shiofra Hassett, the woman told the court "they claimed I was a golddigger”, before adding that relations with her husband’s family have been “extremely difficult”.

She said that she and husband are now struggling financially, resulting in the husband using a local food bank for the family. The woman told the court that her husband has not worked for a number of years and spends his days on his computer at home.

The woman told the court that she has her suspicions that her husband has had sexual relations with a close male friend. She said the two men spent a lot of time together. 

She told the court: "I felt that something strange was going on and started to become suspicious that maybe there was something going on between them, something of the homosexual nature.” 

The woman told the court that her husband’s friend had admitted to her that he had a homosexual encounter once before. However, in evidence, the husband denied that he had sexual relations with the man he described as “a close friend”.

Asked earlier by Ms Doyle does she have someone come to her home to administer Botox injections, the woman replied “every so often. So?” In reply, Ms Doyle said: "You have Botox delivered to your home and yet you are saying here that you don’t have money to feed your children.” 

Ms Doyle asked: "Would you not consider cutting back on the Botox?” In reply, the woman said of her husband "would he not consider getting a job?"

Ms Doyle says that the woman told her husband: “I don’t get mad. I get even.” 

Ms Doyle said that her client has a recording where the woman says: 

I am going to get you, yes, that is what I do to men who f**k me over. I get back at them. I got back at ***. I get back at every man that f**kin hurts me. I got back at ***. He had to pay me twice the amount of child support that a normal person would have to pay. That is what I do. I’ll get back at you.

In reply, the woman said that she doesn’t remember saying that.

Ms Doyle said that the marriage has broken down but that the couple continue to live in their home with their children. The husband's solicitor said that her client does the bulk of the work at home.

Ms Doyle said that her client brought his wife coffee at home before the hearing out of concern that she was facing a day in court.

Judge Adrian Harris adjourned the case to December to allow Tusla carry out a report into the circumstances of the couple’s children under Section 20 of the Child Care Act.

This article was edited on November 2, 2023 to correct a reference to the couple's travel arrangements.