AN ESTRANGED father of five has brought a High Court challenge to the constitutionality of provisions of the Domestic Violence Act related to the making of protection and safety orders.
He claims the provisions amount to an impermissible attack on the family.
In judicial review proceedings against the State, the man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, is seeking to quash protection and safety orders made against him at a district court.
He also wants a court declaration that certain provisions of the Domestic Violence Act concerning such orders are unconstitutional in that, he claims, they violate the fundamental rights of the family and the right to trial according to due process of law.
He claims the legislation provides for no means for him to appeal against or revoke a protection order, meaning the order remains on record forever as a stain against his good name and character. He further argues that a safety order gives an opportunity for one parent to achieve a state of control within a family unit, and that the protection order (effectively an interim safety order) made against him denies his children their constitutional rights and ensures their guardian is denied a fair hearing on the issue.
The State, represented by John O’Donnell SC, denies the man’s claims.
The man’s wife is a notice party to the proceedings.
The man, who is representing himself, said his wife left the family home last year with their two youngest children.
He said the protection order issued against him arose from an incident last summer when two of his children were left with third parties whom his wife had enlisted to look after them while she was out of the country.
The man said he had serious concerns about the third parties and decided to take the children with him to the family home, but was prevented from doing so.
He said he left the scene rather than cause a disturbance.
The man said he contacted the Garda to get them to help him retrieve the two children, but the Garda declined to assist him.
This meant that he was forced to leave the children in a situation with which he was far from happy.
Some months later, he received two summonses, one for a safety order and one for a barring order. He immediately wrote to the court asking for the basis on which these summonses were issued.
He said he received no response.
A week later he received a protection order by post, the breaching of which would result in his immediate imprisonment on the say-so of his wife, he said.
As a follow-on from that order, a safety order was made in a district court earlier this year.
The case before Mr Justice Peter Charleton continues.