Ireland – Roger Elderidge – The true nature of Domestic Violence proceedings

Up on Ration Shed – Egroup and BLOG – with thanks to Roger Elderidge – Ireland – Roscommon – Boyle – Knockvicar – National Men’s Council of Ireland – Chair


Come join FAMILY Orientated Authors.

Take note Go

·      BLOG – 

·      Yahoo –

·      FaceBook –


Onward – Jim



We would appreciate your comments on the following analysis of the true nature of Domestic Violence proceedings. If we are correct perhaps the usual approach needs to be re-examined.


God bless,  Roger Eldridge


Chairman, National Mens Council of Ireland

Executive Director, Family Rights and Responsibilities Institute of Ireland

National Office: Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon

Website:  Email:               

Telephones: 00353 (0) 7196-67138           00353 (0) 86-8180146



The motto of the National Mens Council of Ireland is “Doing what men have always done … protecting their Families, Faith and Freedom”


It is incumbent on us therefore to protect the Family founded on Marriage and to monitor the impact on the Family founded on Marriage of legislation and government policy.


We have analysed the introduction of the Domestic Violence Act, 1996 and have come to some startling conclusions that may be of interest to you in your search for justice in New Jersey.


The National Mens Council of Ireland operate a Family Integrity and Marriage Reconciliation (FIRM) Self-Help Group whereby we provide analyses and resources to members to help them protect their families. Sadly we have yet been unable to find a lawyer who is willing to help in this matter so members have to act as litigants in person.


We currently have a Husband who is in prison because he has exposed that the State/Court does not have jurisdiction to interfere with his Family founded on Marriage and with his parenting whilst he – as Respondent – remains open to the Reconciliation of his Marriage and so has no wish to involve the State/Courts.


He is in on a charge that he is in contempt of an Order for Judicial separation that was made without him making an Appearance in the matter. The police came to his Family home and broke the door down and arrested him. He is there now for 90 days awaiting his appeal of a Habeas Corpus hearing (where the public were omitted!)


What is particularly interesting and relevant to your situation is that he has a Judicial Review pending for Appeal in our Supreme Court and there is doubt now that he will be allowed his appeal. 


In the course of preparing his paperwork we unearthed some very interesting information that we would like to share with you. Another of our members, a Mr O’Brien, provided us with copies of his original Supreme Court judgements where he appealed against the Hugh Courts refusal of his Judicial Review of the Domestic Violence Orders made against his Family. The case is cited as O’B v O’B, 1985 and even though references are often made to it the actual case was unreported.


We can see clearly why this case was not allowed into the public domain. In it the Chief Justice and his two other colleagues set out the principles upon which the State/Court have jurisdiction in Domestic Violence matters and also informs us of the intention of the legislation.


The foremost intention is to facilitate the better functioning and continuance of the Family as a unit! Clearly the Domestic Violence laws are intended to act as an alternative in civil law to the matter being dealt with ordinarily in the criminal courts. The point is that the State has a duty to protect the Family founded on Marriage as a moral institution.


Article 41 of the Irish Constitution

1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.


2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.


2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.


2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.


3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.


Not criminalising one of the Spouses and removing them from the Family and denying the Family the benefit of their input in terms of provision of income and assistance is something that the State can legitimately balance against fundamental rights. 


The State is vindicated therefore in offering to the Family – yes offering to the Family – the alternative of a civil remedy which will be private. The basic proposition is that the Applicant Spouse chooses the civil route BECAUSE SHE WISHES FOR RECONCILIATION AND THE CONTINUATION OF THE FAMILY FUNCTIONING AS A UNIT.


The Respondent Spouse has a choice. If he did not do what he is accused of he can opt for the criminal route and protest his innocence. If on the other hand he is guilty as alleged, rather than face jail he can also opt for the civil route. By making an Appearance in the Domestic Violence application he is effectively admitting to the allegation and is asking for the court’s mercy on the Family by acknowledging that he is prepared to accept the terms of an order very similar in function to a “Probation Order”. The “hearing” as such is therefore simply to determine the nature of this probation-type order, whether it should remove him temporarily from the family home and for the duration of the Order.


The intention of this civil route is to promote Reconciliation. It is remedial in nature rather than punitive on the aggressor and the Family. It prevents the children and the family being stigmatised by a prison sentence.


Of course this civil remedy is not available on the following grounds.


1. Where the respondent wishes to defend himself against a claim that he is guilty of an alleged CRIME.


2. Where the Applicant or Respondent Spouse is themselves not open to the Reconciliation of the Marriage.


I can provide you with copies of the original judgements which corroborate the above and with a copy of the legal arguments used in the Judicial Review. Just ask.


God bless,  Roger Eldridge


Chairman, National Mens Council of Ireland

Executive Director, Family Rights and Responsibilities Institute of Ireland

National Office: Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon

Website:  Email:               

Telephones: 00353 (0) 7196-67138           00353 (0) 86-8180146


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: