Razvan Brucan (I have changed all the names and some other details in this story for reasons that should become obvious) came here as an asylum- seeker in 1998, writes John Waters.
He suffers from a progressive disability and claims he left his native Romania in fear of his life. The following year he was joined by his teenage son, Ion, who has attended an Irish secondary school for the past five years
In 1999 also, Mr Brucan had a daughter, Marie, in his relationship with another Romanian asylum-seeker, Ileana Paunescu. When Marie was two, her parents separated. After a number of disagreements, the matter came before a family court, which awarded Mr Brucan joint-guardianship but ordered, on the basis of Ms Paunescu's allegation that Mr Brucan was violent, that his access be supervised. Mr Brucan applied for a review of the supervision order, but this application was thrown out when he failed to turn up in court.
Following this, Ms Paunescu refused to let Mr Brucan see Marie, citing "legal advice" to the effect that the access order had been struck out. She then applied to the court to have Mr Brucan's guardianship revoked on the basis that he has failed to avail of access. This application is listed for hearing later this month.
An aspect of this case was last year ventilated in the Sunday Business Post, which reported that a family law barrister had been taped making racist comments about Romanians. The recording contained references to "scumbag Romanians who should all be put in a f *** ing ship and f***ed the f*** out of this country altogether . . . f***ed out back where you came from and let whoever is still in power in Romania sort you all out".
The barrister, Boris Broderick (not his real name), represents Ileana Paunescu in the family proceedings. The comments were made in a telephone conversation with another Romanian woman, Alina Lupescu, who has been in an ongoing intimate relationship with the barrister. Lupescu, suspecting that the barrister was having an affair with his client, Ileana Paunescu, taped the conversation and gave the tape to Razvan Brucan.
Since, in addition to the racist nature of some of his comments, there is also an issue relating to breaches by the barrister of the in camera rule (the tape records references to family law cases in which he acted), this matter has now been referred to the Bar Council.
One such reference clearly related to Mr Brucan and his son and to Mr Brucan's claim in a family court that he was unable to pay the required amount of maintenance from his disability pension: "These two guys, the first thing that the guards saw, noticed . . . was the standard of clothing that they were wearing. Thousands."
Meanwhile, Razvan Brucan was living with and caring for his son, who is due to sit his Leaving Cert next June. Earlier this year, however, Razvan pleaded guilty to handling stolen property, and was sentenced to two years in jail, one year of which was suspended.
After two months he obtained temporary release, ostensibly due to his family responsibilities, but it soon became clear that moves were afoot to deport him.
Later, he was issued with a deportation order, signed by the Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, stating that he had failed to remain in compliance with Irish law and had therefore "no current permission to remain in this State". Afraid that deportation would render him unable to return, Mr Brucan left Ireland voluntarily last month. His son, now 18, is still here.
All the sordid details of this case looked likely to hit the fan at the hearing scheduled for later this month. Issues relating to Mr Brucan's guardianship and access, as well as evidence of the barrister's alleged racist comments and breaches of the in camera rule were likely to be ventilated. It is, then, hugely convenient for Ms Paunescu and her barrister that Mr Brucan is no longer in the country.
Racial abuse is unacceptable, yes, but that a family law barrister can feel free to discuss in such terms, with an outsider, intimate aspects of a case purportedly protected by the in camera rule, lends credence to the criticism that what this rule protects is those members of the legal profession who nurture in themselves a deep contempt for the family rights of fathers and children.
There are, too, worrying implications in the facts of this case that immigration procedures can summarily negate the rights of one individual in a manner convenient to an opposing litigant in matters still before the courts.
Such are the concerns raised by Mr Brucan's fate, including the deportation itself and the fact that deportation was not mooted during his trial or on his conviction, to render this a matter upon which Mr McDowell should give public assurances at the earliest opportunity. Pending Mr Brucan's application for a visitor's visa, his lawyers will seek an adjournment of the application to revoke his guardianship. Natural justice and common decency demand no less.