:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/NCSLHCS622222DEQQDQGYQI7ZY.jpg)
A woman labelled a gold-digger 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 his €600,000 in savings has been spent.
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, including 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 her husband told her if he didn’t have children “he would prefer to die”.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/5RKO6MWT3ZFKNGLWRPZV23O5NA.jpeg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/N6GHW732VNB5VJNB2PHBHVD4AY.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/P7LXCM552KOEM6GWFDXRHGWXWM.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/QEORERMP5RCF5GUO2ZSQH5LJ4A.jpg)
She said: “Once I had children, he was done with me. I was a means to an end.”
The woman, who said she was dependent on social welfare, told Ms Doyle: “I am not interested in money.”
The couple were in court making cross applications for Safety Orders against each other. The two have temporary Protection Orders against each other, pending the determination of the Safety Order applications.
The woman said her husband’s family dislike her. Asked why by her solicitor, Shiofra Hassett, the woman said “they claimed I was a gold digger”.
The woman said that relations with her husband’s family have been “extremely difficult”. She and her husband are now struggling financially, resulting in her 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, describing him 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 said her client told her husband “I don’t get mad. I get even.”
Ms Doyle said her client has a recording where she 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. Ms Doyle said that her client does the bulk of the work at home. She 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 on the circumstances of the couple’s children under Section 20 of the Child Care Act.
*This article was amended on November 2nd, 2023