Kildare man licked Ring camera at estranged wife's home, court hears
A WOMAN whose estranged husband licked the ring camera at the front door while she was away on holiday, visits unannounced, follows her around the house in dark glasses, and tells her to “f*ck off” in front of their children was given an interim protection order recently.
The woman took to the witness box during a closed-door family law hearing at Naas District Court before Judge Catherine Hayden and, on the judge’s prompting, began listing the reasons she was seeking such an order.
“He attends the house when I’m working, follows me from the bedroom, tells me to ‘f*ck off, it’s my house as well’,” she began.
“He insults my deceased dad, stares at me in sunglasses when I’m eating the kitchen, and I just don’t know when he could visit.
“When I was on holiday he licked my ring camera, put spittle on it, then emptied out the garage.
“I have no problem with him having a relationship with the children, but if I knew when he was coming, I’d be happier.
“So there’s no formal access?” asked the judge.
“He won’t agree, despite emails, times … I can’t cope,” said the woman.
She asked the judge to include a proviso in the order that he must give 48 hours’ notice before coming over, but the judge immediately noted the flaw in this suggestion.
“If I put in a condition of 48 hours’ notice, he could send you that notice every day, and then be there every day,” commented Judge Hayden. “I can’t legislate for every eventuality.
“If he comes in and puts you in fear, you can call the guards, but not if he’s just downstairs scrolling on his phone,” explained the judge.
“The judge then granted the order, explaining: “This prohibits him putting you or your children in fear. He can’t follow you, or contact you by any means, except concerning access, but I can’t put every permutation into the order.”
“Can you put in he can’t park in the driveway?” asked the woman.
“I can’t do that. Parking in the driveway is not threatening your safety,” said the judge simply.
“Can you put in about the 48 hours’ notice?” asked the appellant, but the judge did not indicate whether she did or not.
She granted the temporary protection order until 25 January, when a full hearing, including the estranged husband’s side of events, would be heard.
