Woman who claims living in west causes stress fails to relocate children to Dublin

It appeared the proposed relocation was motivated predominantly by her 'personal dissatisfaction and career aspirations' rather than by considerations of the children’s welfare, says judge

The judge was dealing with the woman's appeal against a decision refusing her application to relocate the children's primary residence to Dublin where she has got a new job in the financial sector. Stock picture

A Dublin woman, who claimed she would be caused stress by having to continue to live in the west of Ireland, has failed in a High Court appeal seeking to relocate joint custody of her two children with her former husband to the capital.

Mr Justice Max Barrett said, in a judgment published this week, that while the woman claimed that remaining in the west adversely affected her wellbeing, it appeared the proposed relocation was motivated predominantly by her "personal dissatisfaction and career aspirations" rather than by considerations of the children’s welfare.

The judge was dealing with the woman's appeal against a decision refusing her application to relocate the children's primary residence to Dublin where she has got a new job in the financial sector.

The couple married in 2013 and moved west, where he was born, in 2014. He has a senior role in a manufacturing company while she was previously employed in the financial sector.

After the birth of the children, when she accepted a redundancy package, she became a full-time homemaker.

They divorced in May last year on the basis of a consent order in the Circuit Court. But when that court also refused her relocation application, which was opposed by the father, she brought an appeal.

Mr Justice Barrett said they have lived apart since 2021, in different parts of the same county.

Since their separation, she has acted as the primary carer and the net effect of the existing arrangements is that both parents share in the day-to-day care of the children and the father remains fully engaged in their lives, he said.

Two reports by a psychologist for the court recommended the children remain in the west.

The judge said the woman had argued, among other things, that the property in which she and the children reside (the former family home) was unsuitable.

She asserted that the immediate locality offers insufficient amenities for the children, that there is limited green space, and that the house is situated in close proximity to a main road and an industrial estate.

The father provided a map showing the house formed part of a larger residential estate with numerous families. The father said several of the children's friends lived within walking distance and the children participated in extracurricular activities which afford further opportunities for friendships.

The judge said it was "most striking", in considering her criticisms of current living arrangements, that the former family home is an unencumbered property with an approximate value of €340,000, and she also holds equity of approximately €185,000 in a Dublin property.

That meant there was no impediment to her relocating to somewhere in the immediate vicinity or elsewhere within the county, he said.

In relation to her claim that employment opportunities are not as good in the west as in Dublin, the judge said while she may not be able to secure a position identical to that which she formerly held in Dublin, it was nonetheless clear that she is neither unemployable nor unable to obtain suitable work within the west.

She argued her return to the workforce will necessitate increased childcare expenditure but, the judge said, she produced no evidence to substantiate her claim. 

The father, by virtue of the seniority and flexibility of his job, and his expressed willingness to do so, could assume a greater share of the childcare responsibilities.

She had, since getting a job in Dublin, got her parents to travel west to look after the children rather than asking the father, he said.

During the course of the hearing, the judge said, the father was told for the first time that she was engaged to remarry. There was therefore no discussion as to how this would affect the children or their father's role in their lives, the judge said.

She had written confirmations of school places within 5-10 minutes of her proposed Dublin residence but, even assuming such places are secured, there were several reasons why a transfer to a Dublin school would not serve the children’s best interests, the judge said.

These included that a move for one of the children in particular would constitute a major upheaval, he said.

The mother contemplated a structured regime of weekend, holiday, and video contact to preserve frequent, good-quality contact between the children and their father.

However, in the judge's view, this would effectively transform the present co-parenting arrangement into one amounting, in practice, to mostly sole custody by her.

Having regard to these and other matters, and also the evidence of the psychologist, the judge said he was not persuaded the proposed relocation would be in the best interests of the children.