Court rules that harassing granny must abide by restraining order
Naas Courthouse
A WOMAN who was allegedly harassed by her mother-in-law over her insistence to access to her child on her terms, had her application for an interim protection order struck out as the judge wanted to see if the grandparents could abide by the existing restraining order, before attempting family mediation.
The case was scheduled for behind closed doors at Naas District Court, but when Judge Desmond Zaidan heard that it was being contested, he decided he wanted to hear the evidence.
“Why do you need the protection of the court?” he asked the applicant.
“Since 19 May, there have been months of harassment for myself and my parents,” she said.
“They want to control when they want to see their granddaughter,” explained the applicant’s solicitor David Powderley.
He explained how this application was first up on 28 August, and the visiting judge gave an interim restraining order.
“On 19 May, they (in-laws) showed up at my daughter’s playschool and started shouting at me, said they’d go to my work (named company), and I was afraid they would go there,” said the woman.
“On 27 May, they returned to the playschool and left a note, on 7 June I had seven blocked calls, and they called my place of work.
“On 19 June, (the respondent) was waiting for me in the carpark, and shouted abuse at me … calling me a bitch, saying I was brainwashing her son.
“On 29 July, she left a voice message with my mother to talk to her son to see her granddaughter, and said ‘I won’t go through the court’.
“On 6 August, she was again in the car park, then on 22 August my mother was minding my daughter in Tesco’s, when her friend saw them and called (respondent) who came down and followed them home.
“On 28 August, I went to the Garda Station when (respondent’s husband) sent a threatening message to his son.
“He said: ‘you will have to be careful how you go. I will go down to (applicant’s) place of work, bang on the windows and make a show of her … have you the balls to do something about it?’
“She said to my mother ‘I did not bring my son into the world to be controlled by your daughter’."
She added: “On 25 August, I dropped my daughter at my mother’s, and she had followed my car and pulled in front of me.
“I broke down at work, and my colleagues told me to go straight to the court offices to get an interim protection order.
“They stood outside on the first day at school, but we just walked past not to make a fuss.
“They were asked to move away by the principal.
“Later, she shouted at my house ‘I will be there again tomorrow’”.
“Since the restraining order, have there been any more?” asked Mr Powderley.
“No,” said the applicant.
“Would you agree to their access under your terms?” he asked.
“Before all this, but not now,” she replied.
Are you in fear?” he asked.
“Yes. She’s been intimidating me this morning,” she said.
“On 2 September it was the most serious incident.
“I was walking to my car after work and she was on the footpath and refused to let me pass.
“She called her husband and her friend from the other side of the road and they formed a circle around me, screaming at me, calling me ‘a bitch’.
“Employees of (named company) saw this and brought me inside to be safe.
“She started banging on the windows to send me out.
"They rang 999 and I went to the garda station after that.
“I’m afraid, I can’t sleep, my dad has to drive me to work, and (fiancée) has to come to protect me. It’s just harassment."
Her partner was next in the witness box, and the judge asked: “Are your parents that bad?”
“They seem to be more aggressive towards my girlfriend and get irrational since they lost control of their grandchild,” he said. “They used to mind her every Monday … they expected access on tap,” he said.
“Would you be happy for them to see your child on your terms?” asked the judge.
“Maybe three months ago, but not now," he said.
Neither the respondent nor her husband had legal representation, since they said they didn’t have time since they were summonsed two days previously. They both said they could afford it.
Judge Zadian allowed the respondent to give her side.
“I raised that child from day one until she was five. The things she said are not true,” said the mother-in-law. “Us and the family are broken … my heart is broken, ripped out of me."
The judge replied: “You won’t be the first broken family, but I want to be able to help get you guys be civil to each other”, suggesting family mediation.
“When (her son) was born I never stopped his nanny from seeing him – and she was an alcoholic,” said the respondent.
“Your son hasn’t painted you in a bad way,” said the judge.
“He has! He has!” she disagreed.
“I can’t let this fester on, and I can’t let you be enemies. Will you go to mediation?” asked the judge.
“If we have to,” she said sullenly.
“As things stand, it is bad to depressing,” said Judge Zaidan.
“This lady needs to be able to go to work without being harassed,” said Mr Powderley.
“(He) is their child, and what they choose for any good, bad or no reason, you have no choice. It might not be fair, but I can’t force them. That’s life and it’s a bit cruel,” said the judge.
“He has flown the nest, made his bed, now let him lie in it,” said the judge to the man’s mother.
Seeing the unlikeliness of mediation being positively entered into, the judge ordered the interim restraining order stay in place, and that the grandparents make no contact, and stay away from the school and the applicant’s place of work.
He then struck out the application for the protection order, but gave the young couple leave to re-enter if they report any further breaches.
