Private Investigators in Child Custody Matters

Following a separation, the issue is not limited to the determination of maintenance payments, but primarily concerns custody and visitation arrangements where children are involved. If you suspect that your former partner is unfit to care for your child or children, the professional private investigators of Kurtz Detective Agency Kiel and Schleswig-Holstein can provide you with certainty: +49 431 3057 0053.

Fit or Unfit for Child Care?

Family court judges increasingly tend to grant joint custody, whereby both parents share equal responsibility for decisions concerning the child’s welfare. The parent with whom the child primarily resides retains the right to determine the child’s place of residence. However, judges ultimately do not know the parties personally and must base their decisions on testimony and a limited number of court hearings.

In some cases, it becomes apparent that one parent is unfit to care for the child. This may apply either to the parent with whom the child primarily lives or to the one granted visitation rights. Grounds for restricting contact with children may include criminal conduct, neglect, physical or psychological abuse, or alcohol and drug dependency. If you consider your former partner unfit to care for your child, contact our specialised private investigators in Kiel at kontakt@kurtz-detektei-kiel.de.

Alcohol Dependency? Manipulation and Defamation | Case Example

In most cases, our clients’ suspicions prove justified and the other parent is indeed unfit to care for the child. In a small number of cases, however, misunderstandings or deliberate defamation have led to attempts to revoke custody or visitation rights, as demonstrated by the following case handled by Kurtz Private Detective Agency Kiel and Schleswig-Holstein.

Career versus Child-Rearing – Tensions Between Father and Mother

Yvonne, aged 38, and Jens, 34, met at university while studying medicine. After completing her studies, Yvonne accepted a position at a large clinic. Shortly after Jens graduated, Yvonne became pregnant. They agreed that she would return to work after the birth, while Jens would remain at home to care for the child and manage the household.

For several years this arrangement worked well. However, while Jens sacrificed his professional career for childcare and domestic responsibilities and became increasingly dissatisfied, Yvonne worked overtime and weekend shifts and advanced to the position of senior physician. Eventually, they realised their marriage had come to an end and decided to separate amicably. Their seven-year-old son Sören was to remain with Jens.

Neglect of the Child for Alcohol, Men and Parties?

During his years as a househusband, Jens had not only developed a close bond with Sören but had also frequently relied on the help of neighbours during Yvonne’s working hours. This led to a particularly close friendship with the next-door neighbour Sabine, who often stepped in as a babysitter and occasionally caused jealousy on the part of the child’s mother. After Yvonne moved out of the shared flat, Sabine made unmistakable advances towards Jens. Presumably she had long been waiting for the right moment. Jens was not disinclined, and Sören had always got on splendidly with Sabine, who had no children of her own. Mother Yvonne had a fortnightly right of visitation, which she exercised. Jens now found more time again for himself, his friends and his hobby: handball. One weekend, while Sören was staying with Yvonne, the child’s father travelled with his friends to a THW Kiel match. At the same time, Sabine attended a friend’s hen party. Both returned late in the evening and in high spirits.

The following morning, Sabine reported in detail that during the hen celebrations she had visited several bars with her friend and other women and had happened to see Yvonne in a heavily intoxicated state in a nightclub. Jens assumed that Yvonne had left Sören with her parents but found it strange that she had gone out precisely on a visitation weekend. Just a few days later, Sabine told him that she had been shopping in Holstenstraße with her mother and had observed Yvonne together with another woman and two men. Apparently, all four were very fond of alcohol in the form of sparkling wine and were already heavily intoxicated in the morning. Sabine had filmed the incident with her smartphone and showed him the video, in which Sören’s mother was supposedly visible. Jens found his ex-wife’s behaviour disturbing, as during their marriage he had not noticed any excessive inclination towards alcohol on Yvonne’s part.

Withdrawal of Visitation Rights Based on Unproven Allegations

Over the following months, Sabine frequently reported such observations to her new partner. As a result, one weekend when Sören was staying with Yvonne, Jens unexpectedly appeared at his ex-wife’s flat to see whether she was taking proper care of their child or might possibly be intoxicated. When he found no one at home, he rang the neighbouring doorbell. The man who answered told him that Yvonne had travelled with Sören to a family celebration hosted by her parents. Jens therefore drove to his former parents-in-law and found that a garden party was taking place, where apparently a considerable amount of alcohol was being consumed. He found Yvonne holding a glass of punch and informed her that he would take Sören with him and apply the following week for sole custody and sole right of residence determination – which he did. Furthermore, he denied her contact with Sören and told his son that his mother was very ill and that he would only be able to see her again once she was completely well.

Yvonne was appalled by these accusations – especially when she shortly afterwards received a letter from her solicitor informing her that Jens’ lawyer had filed the corresponding applications with the family court. He asked her to attend a meeting at the law firm. There, Yvonne was informed of the allegation of alcohol addiction. Sabine had given a statement as a witness to Jens’ lawyer and had presented the previously mentioned video as evidence. Yvonne assured her solicitor that she was neither alcohol-dependent nor visible in the video in question. When she read the alleged “misconduct” documented in writing by Jens and Sabine, she was speechless. Although she had been holding a glass of punch at the garden party, it had been so-called “children’s punch” without alcohol.

Withdrawal of Visitation Rights Based on Unproven Allegations

For Yvonne and her solicitor, the problem lay in proving that Sabine had invented Yvonne’s alleged misconduct. The lawyer engaged Kurtz Detective Agency Kiel and Schleswig-Holstein, with whom he had already worked successfully on several occasions in the past, and requested assistance. The private detectives commenced their enquiries and, during the course of the investigation, established that on various dates Yvonne could not have been seen by Sabine, as she had either been on duty at the hospital, visiting her parents, or attending her own appointments. The investigators compiled a series of documents and witness statements to exonerate our client.

The solicitor arranged a joint meeting with Jens’ lawyer, to which Yvonne, Jens and Sabine were invited. Once all were assembled, our Kiel detectives confronted Jens and Sabine with the court-admissible, thoroughly documented results of their investigation, whereupon Sabine admitted that she had wanted Sören for herself in order to form her own small family with him and Jens. Jens separated from Sabine and withdrew his applications for sole custody from the family court.

Detectives Provide Clarity

You can see that detective work is highly beneficial, indeed often indispensable, in most custody disputes. In the present case, the child’s welfare was endangered not by a parent, but by a new partner of one parent. Do not hesitate to contact our experienced and competent private detectives in Kiel if you are concerned about your child’s well-being. Inform us of your situation by email at kontakt@kurtz-detektei-kiel.de or by telephone on +49 431 3057 0053.