Judge finds father doctored letter to hide €145,000 income from terminally ill ex-wife
Seán McCárthaigh
A High Court judge has ruled that a father of two “doctored” an official letter from the Department of Social Protection to conceal earnings of over €145,000 from his terminally ill ex-wife in a family law dispute over maintenance payments.
Ms Justice Nessa Cahill said issues of very serious concern were identified in evidence given by the man known only as Mr R in an appeal taken by his former wife, Ms C, over the level of maintenance payment.
Ms Justice Cahill found there was “serious non-disclosure” after he had testified that he had no employment, salary or earned income of any form since March 31, 2023.
The case was an appeal of a Circuit Court ruling which had refused Ms C’s application to vary the level of maintenance paid by her former husband and granted an order sought by Mr R to reduce his contribution to his children’s expenses from 70% to 50%.
Ms Justice Cahill said she was satisfied his evidence was untrue and that he had doctored a letter from the Department of Social Protection to conceal a reference to income of €145,767 between December 2024 and December 2025.
“I am satisfied that this was done deliberately with the object of misleading Ms C, the solicitors and counsel acting for both parties, and the Court,” the judge remarked.
Ms Justice Cahill said she also believed it was not the only instance of forged documents by Mr R which she considered “ a grave matter and manifestly constitutes litigation misconduct.”
The court heard Ms C who is an Irish national and Mr R who is a foreign national have two teenage children and were married in May 2005 before divorcing in October 2021.
The judge acknowledged that Mr R has maintained a strong relationship with his children and has regular direct contact with them.
The court heard Ms C’s life expectancy has been significantly reduced after she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017 for which she has been hospitalised several times.
Following their divorce, an agreement was reached that Mr R would pay maintenance of €100 per child per month as well as 70% of other certain expenses.
Lawyers for Ms C argued that the maintenance payments were agreed at a time when their children spent equal time with both parties but that they had now been residing solely for some time with her.
The court heard that she was employed before developing ill health and was no longer capable of working.
The judge said there were some questions about the prudence of how Ms C had spent some €440,000 she had received from an inheritance and the proceeds of the sale of the family home which she said were largely used to pay her rent and associated costs as she was not eligible for a mortgage.
The court heard she had to live with her sister for a period but had now been given social housing.
Mr R, who was employed in the IT sector before being made redundant in 2023, is now living with a new partner and her children.
He swore in an affidavit that he has not been able to find another job since being made redundant and has been in receipt of unemployment benefit in another EU country during 2025 before applying for and being granted unemployment benefit in Ireland this year.
The court heard that Mr R was accused of doctoring a notice from his former employer to remove reference to more than one redundancy payment.
Ms Justice Cahill concluded that a letter from his former employer had been altered to remove a reference to a second redundancy payment as Mr R had accepted that he had received two payments.
The judge said a key document was the letter from the Department of Social Protection which Mr R had provided as proof of his income.
However, she said his application for Jobseeker’s Allowance contained a reference to income of €145,767 in 2025.
The judge said his evidence that he had misunderstood the form and had inserted the figure for his last year of earnings was “unconvincing” after he originally stated he did not know where the figure came from and denied earning the money.
A second version of the letter from the Department of Social Protection also emerged which contained a reference to the figure of €145,767.
The judge said Mr R had no explanation for the two versions of the letter and she noted how “unsettled and alarmed” he became after questions were asked about them.
The court heard that Ms C believed that Mr R’s claim that he only had a 50% interest in one of two apartments he owned in Lanzarote is untrue.
Mr R’s solicitors also came off record during the case due to a breakdown in trust at a time when he claimed he was in hospital abroad.
Counsel for Ms C claimed a letter from a medical institution about Mr R’s hospitalisation was a forgery.
Ms Justice Cahill said there were also significant questions about where Mr R held his money.
Granting Ms C’s appeal, she ordered monthly maintenance payments to be increased to €1,000 and directed that Mr R pay a total of €110,000 in maintenance in four instalments before November 2027.
She also directed he pay 70% of other expenses and arrears of €4,823 in previously vouched expenses as well as his ex-wife’s legal costs.
