Midlands mother reported man after 'Happy new year' message to their children

A CHARGE alleging breach of a protection order was brought against a man after he sent a 'Happy new year' text message to his children, Tullamore District Court heard.

Judge Andrew Cody dismissed the charge and said the woman who made the complaint to the gardai had misled him when she originally sought the order because she did not disclose that the father of her children was in intensive care in hospital.

The identity of the parties to the case cannot be published for legal reasons and in his written judgment, Judge Cody referred to the accused man as Mr R and his former partner as Ms A.

The judge said Ms A obtained a protection order in court on December 15 last, having complained in her signed information and in sworn testimony that she and her children were being harassed and intimidated by Mr R.

He said she had reported this to her local gardai who tried to call Mr R but he “wouldn’t answer the call”.

READ NEXT: Speeding prosecutions on hold as nomination forms issue is referred to High Court

Judge Cody said it wasn’t denied by Mr R that he had tried to contact the children.

He stated that Ms A had “omitted so much of the context” that he was satisfied she “deliberately misled the court” on December 15.

“The truth couldn’t have been further from Ms A’s written information and sworn evidence,” he said.

The judge outlined that Mr R was admitted to hospital on November 11 last year “for what turned out to be two very serious lifesaving operations”, the first of which necessitated brain surgery later that month.

The man then required separate lifesaving open heart surgery in December and remained in hospital in Dublin for a total of eight weeks.

Judge Cody said when Ms A applied for her protection order Mr R had been in hospital in Dublin for almost five weeks and was still in intensive care some 18 days after his lifesaving brain surgery.

“None of this was disclosed by Ms A in her application.”

A garda had to travel to the Dublin hospital and serve Mr R with the protection order and safety order summons while he was still in the intensive care unit.

“The court should have been told that Mr R was in intensive care as this would have been a very significant factor in deciding to grant or refuse a protection order,” said the judge.

Mr R had not seen his children since October 30, 2025 and was “desperately trying to speak to his children prior to him facing not one but two life threatening operations but was unable to speak to them”.

The judge said because of the allegations made by Ms A the protection order prohibited Mr R from contacting his children.

“Mr R did not do so until the 31st of December 2025, he sent a text message to... his children simply saying, 'Happy New Year'.”

The judge said when the charges for the protection order came before his court on March 7 last Ms A withdrew the summons for a safety order and both parties gave undertakings similar to a safety order.

Ms A had made a complaint to the gardai on January 3, 2026 of a breach of the protection order, which was that her former partner had wished his two children “Happy new year”.

Subsequent to his release from hospital Mr R was arrested and brought before the court where he was prosecuted for a breach of the protection order. The matter was in court for hearing on March 16.

Judge Cody said: “Interestingly, Ms A received €100 gift by Revolut on the 3rd of January 2026 from Mr R which was also a technical breach of the protection order but no complaint was made in respect of same.”

He said the Domestic Violence Act of 2018 provides valuable protection to the victims of domestic violence and is a very important piece of legislation as it reflects a modern understanding of domestic abuse, including emotional and psychological harm, and for the first time in Irish law, emotional abuse and controlling behaviour are recognised as forms of domestic violence through the offence of coercive control.

“This acknowledges that domestic abuse is not only physical but can include patterns of intimidation, manipulation, threats, and isolation,” he said.

He added: “However, I have noticed an alarming trend which is the exploitation of the judicial system as a form of control and possibly coercive control which undermines the integrity of legal protections for abuse survivors.

“Coercive controllers can be adept at manipulating legal applications to perpetuate abuse, using tactics that undermine the real purpose of the legislation. A common strategy involves selectively presenting evidence - cherry-picking bits and pieces of information, often out of context, to portray the opposing party negatively or trying to secure a domestic violence order for reason other than it was intended for.

“That is what happened here. Ms A failed to tell this court that Mr R had been in hospital for five weeks prior to her application. She failed to tell the court that he had undergone a lifesaving brain operation and that he was still in the intensive care unit and facing within a matter of days further lifesaving open heart surgery.

“Had Ms A been honest she would not have obtained a protection order from me. I would not have directed service of a protection order on someone in intensive care except in the most exceptional circumstances.”

He described the complaint by the woman about the 'Happy new year' message as “a disgraceful abuse of the gardai’s time and this court's time”.

“Her distortion of the truth exploited the legal system as an instrument of abuse as did her totally unnecessary complaint following the wishing of a 'Happy new year' to her children.

“The weaponisation of the gardai and the judiciary by manipulators and controllers poses profound implications for the treatment of domestic abuse.

“When abusers manipulate legal proceedings to their advantage, they not only inflict further harm on their victims but also compromise the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.

“Courts and gardai must be hyper vigilant so as not to inadvertently become complicit in the weaponisation of court proceedings as a form of abuse, based on misleading or manipulated evidence, the granting of protection orders on misleading unchallenged information or the arrest and charging of respondents on spurious breaches of domestic violence legislation.”

Judge Cody concluded: “In the circumstances I have no hesitation in dismissing this charge.”