Woman alleges ex-partner threatened her life over toddler son’s pink tracksuit

A woman who said her ex-partner threatened to “slaughter” her and “end her life” when objecting to their son being dressed in a pink tracksuit has secured a protection order against the man.The woman told the emergency domestic violence court at Dolphin House in Dublin that she is “very afraid” of the man. “There have been times when I thought he was going to kill me,” she said. The man subjected her to physical and verbal abuse and coercive control throughout their relationship, the woman told Judge Gerard Furlong, adding that she suffered black eyes, a swollen lip and lost “chunks of hair”. READ MOREShe said he assaulted her “a lot”, including strangling her once when she was pregnant, and that “there would be times he would attack me and his family would have to pull him off me”.Their relationship ended some months ago but when the man had their child recently, he phoned the woman asking what was she doing putting a pink tracksuit on his son. She said the man told her the toddler “is a boy, not a girl”. He told her the tracksuit “is in the bin” and he would send a video showing what he had done to it, she said.He warned her that if anyone came to get the child, there would be “no talking”. She said he called her a prostitute and threatened to “split” her throat and her mother’s. He said he would “slaughter” her and end her life, adding: “Don’t think I won’t.” During their relationship, she said, he would not let her work, controlled her money and refused to allow her to have a phone apart from a Nokia, which he later smashed. He would smash things if she did not have his dinner ready and required her to iron his clothes “and do anything he asked”. The judge said the evidence showed a “clear history” of coercive control and that he would grant a protection order. The woman thanked him, became distressed and her hands shook as she wiped away tears. In another ex parte (one side only represented) application on Friday, the judge continued an interim barring order obtained by a couple against their adult son. The father, aged in his late 80s, said his wife is currently in hospital and is seriously ill.“We feel unsafe,” he said. They sought the interim order after an incident in which their son smashed a banister in their house. They said their son gets into “threatening moods” when drunk, threatens violence and smashes things, including doors and TVs, if his parents refuse to give him money. The judge could not deal with the barring order application on Friday because the son was in custody and is entitled to be produced in court to set out his position on the application. The matter was returned to early October, with the interim order continuing.In another application, a woman was granted interim barring orders against her two adult sons, aged in their 20s. “I need help, I’m in fear for my life,” she said. Both sons have lived away from home for a number of years, but one tried recently to get into her home “and was not taking no for an answer”. She said she believed a petrol bomb thrown into the garden was targeted at her sons, but she did not know why. The woman is afraid for herself and her younger children, she said.In a separate application, a man sought a protection order against his estranged wife.During their relationship, she subjected him to a pattern of bullying, coercive control, financial and emotional abuse, he said. It got to a stage where he was “afraid to go home” as she was “either verbally abusive or completely silent”. She had fallen out with neighbours and her work colleagues and “brainwashed” their children against him.He was “extremely upset and shocked” when she got a protection order against him two years ago and left the house for a time. His solicitor had written to the woman saying he was entitled to move back in. The man said he was “living a nightmare”, was locked out of home several times and had gone to court on multiple occasions. His solicitor wrote to a senior garda over his wife’s misuse of court orders and her attempts to have him arrested for “frivolous” reasons. He said she tried but failed to overturn an access order and made serious allegations against him to Tusla that were dismissed by the agency. He has initiated divorce proceedings, has had counselling and wanted a protection order. “I’ve had enough of this charade,” he said. The judge granted the order on the basis of the coercive control and the history the man had set out.