A 43-year-old woman from the western district is said to have gone to her home country Romania with her seven-year-old son without her husband at the time knowing anything about it.
The 43-year-old has now been accused of depriving minors at the Bruck district court.
Fürstenfeldbruck - The woman did not have to appear at the hearing.
She still lives in Romania and was represented by her lawyer.
But her ex-husband, who is now living in Germany, did not appear at the district court to testify.
Since he had not apologized, the man was charged a fine of 150 euros and the proceedings were suspended, and negotiations will take place again in November.
The lawyer explained beforehand why his client moved to Romania in the summer of last year.
He called it "emergency aid".
Because she “saw no way of getting her son through in Germany”.
Although she worked in a butcher's shop, the man took her wages, which flowed into the joint account with her husband.
He also did not pass on the child benefit to her.
The money was so tight that the 43-year-old threatened that the electricity would be turned off.
His client was then financially supported by her parents living in Romania.
Ultimately, however, she decided to go back to her home country, where she can work as a teacher, which she does.
The lawyer also emphasized that his client had informed her then husband about the move to Romania - which the ex-husband denies in his testimony to the police.
A couple of friends of the 43-year-olds could not help to clarify as witnesses at the hearing.
The two reported that the defendant only went to Romania to go on vacation there.
The husband was also informed about it.
The lawyer then campaigned to end the proceedings against his client without a statement from her ex-husband.
Because meanwhile the couple is divorced and the ex-husband agrees that his son lives in Romania.
He suspected that the man's complaint against his client was an act of revenge and wondered whether the man's testimony could be believed at all.
But the prosecutor was not ready to end the proceedings.
Because the befriended couple only reproduced what they had heard from the defendant.
The judge suspended the hearing and set a new date in November.
sus