OLG father without right of access can demand information about child

OLG Hamm sees legitimate interest in information about daughter
Hamm (jur). Even if a divorced father has not been granted a right of access with his daughter because of his behavior, he can regularly ask the mother for information about the child's development. Such an information does not contradict the child's welfare and must not be granted by the mother, finally, by a personal contact, the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Hamm decided in a decision announced on Thursday, February 25, 2016 (Ref .: 2 WF 191/15 ).
In this case, the parents of a five-year-old daughter had separated after the father had become violent. The parental care remained alone with the mother. The father, who had been imprisoned in the meantime, did not have a right of access. Nevertheless, he regularly requested information about the development of his daughter.

New ruling strengthens father's rights. Image: Markus Bormann - fotolia

The family court Bottrop decided that the mother every six months a written report and two photos of the child must send. The father was not allowed to make the photos available to third parties or publish them on social networks.

The mother did not want to give the information about the child and would like to break off the contact altogether. The father had expressed her brother in a chat with hateful slogans and threatened with a child abduction. Her ex-partner was not only violent towards her but also violent towards her daughter.

However, in its ruling of 24 November 2015, the Higher Regional Court ruled that the father had a legitimate interest in the development of his daughter. Just because he was denied access rights does not mean that he can not ask for information about his child. A child endangerment is not with the information, according to the Hammer Richter.

It is also not clear that the father abusively requires the information. He did not threaten child abduction in the chat with his mother's brother. This was rather addressed by the brother alone. It should also not be recognized that the father wants to attack his daughter or seek revenge on the mother.

As far as threats against brother and mother were expressed, it was a matter of "little adult impersonation" which were triggered by provocations by the brother. It was understandable by the mother that she did not want to have personal contact with her ex-partner. Nevertheless, she has an information obligation, since the information about the child does not have to be given by a personal contact, stressed the Higher Regional Court. (FLE)