The Client With the Protection Order
A man hires an agency to 'document' his ex-girlfriend's routine 'for a custody filing,' though they have no children together. During intake he mentions an active harassment protection order she obtained against him and asks for her new address because 'she moved and did not tell the court.' While surveilling her mother's house, the investigator observes the 82-year-old mother living alone with little food, expired medication and a visible bruise; the client says, 'Do not say anything, that is not what I am paying for.' The client then asks the investigator to sign an affidavit stating that he saw the ex 'cohabiting with a new boyfriend' in another state, to support a modification. The investigator has seen no such thing.
1. Should the agency accept or continue this engagement, and how should it handle the address request?
Read the worked answer
The stated purpose does not hold up. No children are in common, so the custody framing is pretextual, and the request for the address of a woman who holds a protection order against the client fits a stalking or harassment pattern rather than a legitimate investigative need. Providing her location could facilitate a violation of the order and expose the agency to civil and licensing consequences. The ethical answer is to decline the engagement, or at minimum to refuse any location or routine-tracking work unless counsel supplies a genuine case number, the pleadings, and a written scope that does not involve contact with the protected person.
Document the intake, the protection order disclosure, the address request and the decision. If the agency declines, send a short written notice of withdrawal that does not disclose confidential information. Do not tip off the ex-girlfriend; that is a decision for law enforcement or her attorney.
2. What should the investigator do about the mother, given the client's instruction to stay quiet?
Read the worked answer
The client's instruction does not control. Nebraska's adult protective services framework (Neb. Rev. Stat. section 28-3720 et seq.) addresses abuse and neglect of vulnerable adults and provides immunity for good-faith reports; whether reporting is mandatory for every person or only for specified professionals should be confirmed against the current statute, but the practical answer is the same. An 82-year-old living alone without food, with expired medication and an unexplained bruise, warrants a report to Adult Protective Services and, if there is immediate danger, to local law enforcement.
Report only what was observed: date, time, location, conditions, and the bruise without diagnosing it. Do not enter the home, move items, or conduct further investigation. Keep the report factual and retain a copy. The agency should also have a written policy so investigators are not deciding this under pressure in the field.
3. How should the agency respond to the affidavit demand?
Read the worked answer
Refuse. Signing an affidavit describing an observation that never occurred is false swearing, could constitute perjury if used in a court proceeding, and would expose the agency to civil liability and loss of license. It would also be discovered, because the opposing party will ask when, where and how the observation was made, and the agency has no answer.
The right response is to offer a truthful declaration stating exactly what the investigator observed and did not observe, and to tell the client that the agency will not supply facts. Confirm the request and the refusal in the file. Coupled with the protection-order issue, a client asking an investigator to fabricate an affidavit is a serious warning sign about the whole engagement; the agency should seriously consider withdrawing and should review whether anything already done for this client creates risk.