When I entered Bolesławieckie District Court, I hurriedly glanced at the court schedule. The cases interested me greatly, although it was usually a routine activity, since nothing unusual was happening in Bolesławiec. I had already become so practiced that, at first glance, I noticed something unusual. There were to be four hearings in courtroom no. 10. All concerned increases in child support. They did not differ greatly, apart from one small detail: while the first two were scheduled to last (according to the plan) fifteen minutes each, as much as two hours had been allotted to the case between Ms Z. and Mr J. I therefore decided to find out why.
After the hearing ended, I approached Ms Z., who, as it turned out, was a close acquaintance of the family, and asked her for an interview. She agreed to the proposal and told me the story of her life.
When she was in her twenties, she met a handsome man who was also a very important figure in the city. Her acquaintance with Mr J., who was considerably older than her, was brief but fruitful. A daughter was born, but, as is often the case, only the mother felt obliged to raise her. Ms Z. did not tell anyone who the father was, and when, after some time, she decided to reveal to the world who the father was, the defendant did not even want to admit for a moment that the matter concerned him. Paternity was nevertheless established with one-hundred-percent certainty, and Mr J. then decided to devise something. Although he had a wife and child whom he left in Wrocław, after several years of struggling with the plaintiff he himself left the country. Two years later he brought his family over to him and remained abroad for another three years. Meanwhile, the exhausted Ms Z. did absolutely everything to determine the address of the frivolous father. She wrote to embassies, but to no avail. In complete desperation, she fought to obtain regular payments from ZUS. When she filed a suit for an increase in child support in December of the previous year, it turned out that Mr J. was temporarily in the country to renew his passport. Ms Z. kept her wits about her in this situation and did not let the father escape once again. Mr J. presented the court with a certificate stating that he was receiving unemployment benefits, and that he had previously had to leave the country in search of work. Before leaving, it is true, he had sold substantial assets, and abroad he had amassed a respectable fortune, but he did not tell the high court about this, and revealing such facts by the plaintiff required evidence. The plaintiff managed to stop Mr J.’s passport from being issued, but he immediately threatened that he would stop paying child support altogether, because without a passport he would not be able to go west to work. Mr J. claimed that he had received a serious offer from a certain company whose name remains secret. Everything revolves around companies publicly promoted by Mr J.’s business partners.
Good friends are doing the defendant a friendly favor, allowing him to appear before the court with nothing but a certificate confirming that he receives unemployment benefits.
But is he not afraid of losing the assets he entrusted to them merely on their word? Well, of course, unless something bigger is hidden behind this as well. In court, however, only facts that can be documented count. But how can someone’s irresponsibility be documented?
It all sounds like a bedtime story. In reality, for someone it represents a dramatic problem.
Here is a man who lives with impunity and irresponsibly, exploiting others. Despite having so much money and a secure, high-standard life, he resorts to such low behavior.