ALEXANDER BRUTZER (PLAINTIFF) vs. GEORGINA TETTEH HAEUSSER & ANOR. (DEFENDANTS) [2012]DLHC7515

Date	2012-03-09
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BMISC.27/2010
Citation No.	[2012]DLHC7515

K. AMISSAH-KOOMSON J

ANDREWS TETTEH FOR PLAINTIFF.

D.K. AMELEY FOR DEFENDANTS.

[2012]DLHC7515
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >ALEXANDER BRUTZER<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GEORGINA TETTEH HAEUSSER &amp; ANOR.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>SUIT
NO. BMISC.27/2010&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 9TH MARCH, 2012<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">ANDREWS
TETTEH FOR PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">D.K.
AMELEY FOR DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;K. AMISSAH-KOOMSON, J<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>Exactly
ten years ago today 9th March, 2002, a baby girl subsequently named Nikita
Tetteh-Hausser was born in Germany to a German father, the Plaintiff herein and
a Ghanaian mother the 1st Defendant herein. The only real issue to be
determined in this action is which of the parents to be granted custody of the
child. The second defendant has been roped in because of the role she played in
the events leading to the suit. Those will become clear as the facts unfold. <o:p></o:p>The
relevant facts are that the Plaintiff, a 43 year old German national met the
1st defendant in Germany in 1996. The 1st defendant puts the date to 1998 but
that is of little relevance. Initially the Plaintiff acted as a German/English
interpreter between 1st Defendant and her German boyfriend Ralph Fabry. After
some ten days the Plaintiff displaced the boyfriend and took over the driving
seat. They remained in a love relationship for between six to seven years.
According to the 1st Defendant the Plaintiff intimated to her at the beginning
of their relationship that as a result of a motor accident he had sometime
back, doctors had declared him incapable of making babies. He showed 1st
defendant both physical scars on his body and documentary medical evidence to
that effect, if this assertion is to be believed then both parties entered into
this relationship for mere pleasure and sexual gratification.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In the course of this association the 1st
Defendant became pregnant. Mid-way through the pregnancy 1st defendant became
involved in another amorous relationship with another German by name Thomas
Hauasser. Perhaps a combination of the 1st defendant's perceive promiscuous
lifestyle and the alleged medical declaration of his own reproductive status
made Plaintiff doubt his authorship of 1st defendant's pregnancy when 1st
defendant broke the news to him. Consequently he showed indifference from the
start. <o:p></o:p>Eventually
in March, 2002, 1st defendant was delivered of a baby girl the subject matter
of this action. A DNA test conducted two months subsequent to the birth
confirmed Plaintiff as the father of the child. Exhibit J the report of the DNA
test is not in dispute. Obviously Plaintiff thereafter became enthusiastic and
excited about this miracle child who I will hereafter refer to simply as
Nikita. He began to press 1st for access and later custody. <o:p></o:p>At
this time 1st Defendant frustrated Plaintiff's access to the (child) Nikita
ostensibly because he did not maintain her during the pregnancy. She also
refused to name the child after Plaintiff because she desired sole custody.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On three occasions Plaintiff went to the
Registrar in Germany to claim paternity but would not be entertained to make a
statement as according to him 1st defendant was then lawfully married to
someone else and Plaintiff could not under German law legally claim paternity
in the circumstances. 1st Defendant heeded advice of the German authorities and
regularized her divorce with Achim Wipf a German in Ghana. Exhibit 1 is the
Divorce Certificate issued at the Tema Circuit Court in respect of 1st
defendant's divorce with Achim Wipf. It is dated 27th August, 1997. It is an
unsealed and uncertified photocopy. This exhibit does not dove-tail well into
Plaintiff's testimony because it was in existence long before the birth of
Nikita and the absence of it could not have been the reason why Plaintiff was
initially denied a hearing by the German authorities. <o:p></o:p>Be
that as it may, the Plaintiff was subsequently permitted to make a formal
complaint or statement in pursuit of his paternity claim. It was then left with
1st Defendant to give him custody and change the name of Nikita but she refused
to do both.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Plaintiff's access to and custody of Nikita
became a contentious issue between the parents with 2nd defendant the mother to
the 1st defendant jumping into the fray. Plaintiff had to lodge a formal
complaint to the Youth Welfare Office in Germany whereupon he was granted a one
hour a week supervised access to Nikita. Subsequently the access was
progressively enhanced to three (3) hours, eight (8) hours and then for entire
week-ends. <o:p></o:p>In
July 2004 1st Defendant decided to come down to Ghana on holidays ostensibly to
visit her mother, the 2nd defendant. This visit was with the consent of both
the Plaintiff and the German Social Welfare authorities. It was to cover a
period of between four to six weeks. Eventually 1st defendant went back to
Germany after eight weeks leaving Nikita in the care of the 2nd defendant in Ghana.
On why she did not return to Germany with Nikita. 1st defendant testified that
it was because when she was coming to Ghana she furnished Plaintiff with her
telephone number so he could be calling Nikita. On a number of occasions when
Plaintiff called from Germany and asked to speak to Nikita he was told she was
asleep. Plaintiff thought defendants were deliberately denying him access to
Nikita. According to 1st defendant, Plaintiff then threatened to abduct Nikita
to Thailand to permanently deprive defendants of access if he should ever get
custody of her. This threat of abduction was the reason she left Nikita in
Ghana. <o:p></o:p>