In a divorce case that sounds like something out of a detective novel, a judge recently determined that the private detective hired by a man to follow his wife was a legitimate part of the divorce process.

According to the story in the New York Law Journal, the Orange County, New York, man hired the private investigator to follow his wife to a hotel, where she was having an affair with a priest. The husband gave the recording to the church where his wife worked, and she was forced to resign.

At the urging of the church, the man turned over the recording of the event to the court. The wife in the case claimed that by hiring the detective her husband had violated an order of protection that prohibited him from going to her home or her workplace.

Family Court Judge Debra J. Keidaisch disagreed with that opinion, however. The judge claimed that the husband in the case reserved the right to collect evidence enabling him to defend himself in the divorce case.

“The hiring of a professional licensed private investigator in a matrimonial action to gather evidence is for a proper and legitimate purpose,” Judge Keidaisch wrote in her opinion.

When the woman filed for divorce in November of 2008, her husband offered the counter-allegation that his wife had been having an affair. In early 2009, the court issued the order of protection that kept him from coming within 1,000 feet of his wife’s home or workplace, except to go to church or for court-ordered visitation. The court order was entered without finding any fault with the husband.

The decision in the case stated that the husband’s private investigator followed his wife to a motel, where he recorded the liaison between her and who the decision labeled “Priest L.” This priest had been assigned to the church where the wife was working. This priest also regularly said Sunday Mass while the wife, husband and their daughter were in attendance.

After he heard the news about his wife, the husband was unable to take communion because he was so distraught. He told the news to another priest, but he was so embarrassed that he asked that priest not to reveal the news to the monsignor. Only after the monsignor arrived at his home did the husband give up the DVD of the encounter between his wife and Priest L.

The wife did not contest the affair. She did, however, make the claim that her husband had disobeyed the court order. She also said that he was not legally obligated to release the DVD to church officials, which in effect led to her necessary resignation.

“Under the circumstances, the hiring of the private investigator, in and of itself, was not an unlawful intrusion upon the rights of the wife secured by the order of protection,” the decision continued. In other words, the husband was not simply required to accept the claims of his wife that she had discontinued her affair with the priest.

In addition, the judge said that handing over the DVD was not harassment, because the father still had contact with Priest L. at church, which qualified as a legitimate and justifiable reason to release the video.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 10th, 2010 at 10:53 am and is filed under Divorce News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.