Ms Louise Bayliss:

Domestic abuse is one of the things we are really concerned about. When we set up SPARK it was not an issue we thought would be so prevalent, but an awful lot of women approach us when they are in the midst of domestic abuse and violence and are looking at their options. They ask us what the options are for the family home, social welfare and maintenance, which we go through with them. They are always appalled because they believe they are more supported than they are when it comes down to it. I was shocked one day when I spoke to a woman - I have told this story before - who said to me that it was a case of homelessness or hospitalisation for her. She made the choice that two or three hospital visits a year were okay, if her children were not going into homelessness. I do not believe that anybody thinks that is a realistic option. When we hear the question "Why doesn't she just leave him?" that is the reason. There are no real alternatives. We know that the chances of ending up in homelessness are very high for somebody being abused.

One of the things that happened during the Covid pandemic that was very welcome was the enhanced rent supplement for victims of domestic violence. That was a very positive move, which we welcomed. It gives people an option. However, during the same period, there was a High Court ruling that all mortgage payments are now fully assessed as maintenance. That is contradictory because if someone is in a family home on which there is a mortgage, and even if the abuser has been barred from the house and there is a court order to pay maintenance, the Department of Social Protection will assess that full mortgage payment as maintenance that is going towards the children. The family can be left with no money to live on. We have heard of cases where people will forgo the mortgage being paid so that they can feed their children. That is counter-intuitive because that family will eventually have their home repossessed, go into homeless accommodation and be on HAP, which will cost much more. Very simple measures can be taken to support a family when family breakdown is happening to ensure that the mortgage is paid, but is not calculated as child maintenance leaving the family with nothing to live on. There are very simple moves like that.

Senator Ruane spoke about her child maintenance Bill. We believe that if such a Bill did not involve going back to court, it would also make a major difference. When people get away from their abuser, they do not necessarily want to go onto a combative court system to argue for child maintenance. It should be something that is taken through Revenue, where it assesses the payment that is paid directly to the parent, for all victims of abuse, but especially for families experiencing domestic abuse.

We are very concerned that when somebody escapes from an abuser, and this is again from lived experience in SPARK, there are two things that continue post separation - arguments about access and arguments about child maintenance - because these are the only two things that can be controlled. If we had that taken out of the court system, and the best interests of the child considered in maintenance and access, it would make a major difference. It would give people real options to leave abusers.