Child Custody Investigation: Evidence Collection in Custody Modification Cases

Grandmother Raising Grandchild, Custody Almost Lost to Former Daughter-in-Law

Divorce often entails dividing assets first, then addressing custody battles. Discussions over child custody can turn heated, with both parties trading insults and showing no restraint. When custody is surrendered, visitation rights are often blocked, leaving many struggling with unresolved bitterness that harms the innocent child.

When Ken divorced his ex-wife, her conditions for signing the divorce papers were clear: a lump sum payment, unrestricted visitation rights, weekend stays at her residence, and no obligation to contribute to child support or educational expenses. Only under these terms was she willing to finalize the divorce.

After the divorce, Ken’s ex-wife moved back to her mother’s home in New Taipei City and resumed her job as an administrative staff member at a municipal hospital. She diligently exercised her visitation rights, picking up their son from Ken’s home weekly, often staying overnight during weekends.

Ken relocated closer to his workplace after the divorce, entrusting his parents with the daily care of his child. This arrangement, legally referred to as “delegated custody,” allowed Ken to visit his son and parents in Taoyuan’s Longtan District on weekends, often spending time together as a family or going on outings.

The peace was short-lived. One day, Ken unexpectedly received a summons from the family court. The case? Custody modification. His ex-wife had filed for custody of their minor child. The suddenness of the legal action puzzled Ken, especially since she hadn’t visited their son for the past two weeks. Alarmed, he immediately sought legal counsel to contest the case.

Ken’s mother was distraught, exclaiming that life would lose its meaning if her grandson were taken away. During the trial, Ken’s ex-wife frequently visited the Longtan residence unannounced, claiming visitation rights. Fearful that the child might not return, Ken’s parents began refusing her entry, which escalated into claims of visitation obstruction. She contacted the 113 hotline, leading to police involvement, incident reports, and social welfare investigations. Ken’s lawyer warned him that the custody battle’s odds were against him, given his ex-wife’s stable job, medical background, and residence environment, which appeared more favorable than his parents’ combined factory and living space.

Ken suspected discrepancies in the evidence presented by his ex-wife. Her claim of living in a newly renovated home conflicted with his knowledge of her economic situation. At his lawyer’s advice, Ken hired Lex Solution Investigations to conduct surveillance and verify her statements.

The investigation revealed surprising details. Ken’s ex-wife was cohabiting with an unknown man in a shared apartment in Tucheng District, New Taipei City. The apartment housed other family members and was far from the ideal environment portrayed in her custody filing. Surveillance reports, complete with video evidence, detailed her daily routine: commuting with her boyfriend, breakfast outings, and her boyfriend driving her to the metro station. She occasionally took the train alone from Taipei’s hospital to her residence, further undermining her claims of a stable and independent living arrangement.

Using the evidence collected, Ken’s lawyer requested the court to summon his ex-wife’s brother as a witness. Under oath, the brother confirmed that his sister was not residing with him at the address listed in the social welfare report. This revelation invalidated the welfare report’s findings, significantly strengthening Ken’s case.

The family court ultimately ruled in Ken’s favor, allowing him to retain custody of his son. The happiest of all was undoubtedly the grandmother, relieved to keep her grandson by her side.