IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN TO A WOMAN FAMILY LAW IN IRELAND 2013

A man marries a woman. They are both self employed earning the same money. They both decide to work three days week so they can look after their new born son. Prior to the marriage, the man built up a substantial property portfolio in the UK by remortgaging the house that was to become the family home. Most of the properties are now in substantial negative equity. 

Problems occur. Mother will not allow father to have anything other than a minimal input into looking after their son. She leaves home. She moves in with her mother in a mortgage free house registered in her name. 

What do you think will be a fair outcome? 50/50 on everything? I am only giving you a very potted history here but I couldn’t blame you for thinking that this should be a good example where in 2013 there is a degree of equality between the sexes both in relation to parenthood and in relation to financial assets. 

All wrong. The woman gets the mortgage free house free of any claim of the man. The man gets all the debt ridden properties. The one that has the heaviest negative equity is ordered to be transferred into the sole name of the husband so he now has to look after this property which is unlikely to become an asset for about 15 years. 

The children’s allowance was to be used to fund the child’s third level education. It now goes to the mother. 

Please don’t be shocked or surprised. This is just a day in the life of the Dublin Circuit Family Court.

Kevin Brophy

Brophy Solicitors

Should Certain Barristers be Barred from Family Law Cases?

I recently ran a very bitterly contested family law case and while my client was not the easiest client to represent, the barrister on the other side was the most unpleasant, confrontational, vindictive professional person I have ever come across in my years in family law.

There was never the remotest possibility that this case was going to settle amicably while this person was making the decisions on the other side.


The situation was made all the worse because I was actually quite impressed by the barrister’s client, who came across to me as a fairly reasonable individual.

In my view the barrister did her client no favours. A case that should have been settled in a matter of months ended up taking three years to come to a conclusion and I am quite convinced that this case was prolonged unnecessarily and tensions were increased quite extraordinarily, all down to the ‘never give an inch’ ‘fight every single tiny aspect of this case to the very end’ attitude of the barrister on the other side. And this was not an argument just about money. This was a case involving young children as well as property.

Unfortunately, in my experience this particular barrister is not on her own. Most of them I am happy to say are exceptionally competent and fair and reasonable to deal with. However.....

Here’s an idea. If a man can be barred from his home for years on end because he is aggressive, vindictive and at times threatening, why can’t a barrister be barred from a courtroom for exhibiting the exact same traits particularly when children and vulnerable adults can be permanently damaged as a result of their actions?



Kevin Brophy
Brophy Solicitors