Wednesday, July 6

An abuser will never be a good parent

The new wording of article 94 of the Civil Code modified by Law 8/2021, of June 2, promoted by the progressive government, provides: “The parent who does not have minor or disabled children with him will have the right to visit them, communicate with them and have them in their company. The Judge will determine the time, manner and place of the exercise of this right, which may limit or suspend if serious circumstances arise that advise it or the duties imposed by the judicial resolution are seriously or repeatedly breached . ” And he adds that all this will be done “always keeping in mind the interest of the minor.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child dates from November 20, 1989 and was ratified by Spain on December 31 of the following year. In said Convention, art. 3.1 warns us that “In all measures concerning children taken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, a primary consideration to be addressed will be the best interests of the child” . We already find here a mention of the best interests of the minor, who is the subject to be protected due to their special vulnerability. And art. 9.1 of the same complete Convention: “The States Parties shall ensure that the child is not separated from his parents against their will, except when, subject to judicial review, the competent authorities determine, in accordance with the law and the procedures applicable, that such separation is necessary in the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in particular cases, for example, in cases where the child is abused or neglected by their parents or when they live separately and a decision must be made about the child’s place of residence. ”

This very reasonable wording dates from 1989, 32 years ago. While the modification of our Civil Code has had to wait until 2021 to adapt to what the Convention on the Rights of the Child said. This modification makes it possible to suspend the right to visit the parent on whom a complaint (in the vast majority of cases well founded, contrary to what some take for granted) of mistreatment is suspended.

For using the masculine plural that the RAE likes so much and based on the statistics I will begin to use the word “parents”. Because the reality is that in most cases it is the male parent who meets these characteristics, and a father who beats his children or their mother should not be able to have access to the latter.

The modification in 2005 of the wording of art. 92.7 of the Civil Code established that “Joint custody shall not proceed when either of the parents is involved in a criminal proceeding initiated for attempting against the life, physical integrity, liberty, moral integrity or sexual freedom and indemnity of the other spouse or of the children who live with both. Nor will it proceed when the Judge notices, from the allegations of the parties and the evidence practiced, the existence of well-founded indications of domestic violence. ”

This meant that an abusive parent was not granted joint custody of the child, but did enjoy visitation rights, usually consisting of alternate weekends and weekday afternoons without supervision, in which they had their children without any kind of supervision. surveillance.

The possibility of an abusive parent taking their children away unsupervised and disposing of them for days is not seen as a problem until news of the event breaks out in the media. When a father kills his children while they are in his care, he gives the impression that he does so because he could, because he knows that in doing so he caused the mother the greatest possible pain (the so-called “vicarious violence”), or, simply because he could, because they were “his”.

Those who throw their hands at their heads with the apocalyptic prophecy of the end of the traditional family as we know it seem to forget the atavistic complex that our society suffers from: the deification of the figure of the Father.

Whether as his person or as his figure immersed in everyone’s subconscious, the characteristics of the Father have remained almost intact for thousands of years. And that includes maintaining their “rights” or privileges over their offspring. Parental visitation rights over their minor children have been held for years over their interests, because it was considered more damaging not to see your father before your father abused you. Up to that point the status of the Father has been maintained in this country.

The alleged parental alienation syndrome was precisely twisting the situation, denying the will of the son who decides that he does not want to see his father, instead of focusing on the reasons why a child refuses to see his father, blaming the custodial parent / mother in the vast majority of cases. Through the use and abuse of this syndrome, the use of the tagline “taking into account the best interests of the minor” thus acquires an almost mocking connotation.

Of course, the most extreme, most definitive and absolute way is the murder of the children at the hands of the father. In this country we have a very recent example that has impacted the whole of society and for my part I recognize that the news caused a knot in my stomach that took hours to unravel. But the fact that the media only focus the media focus on these most shocking and extreme cases and, therefore, more isolated as far as possible, to a certain extent makes the cases that do not reach that seriousness invisible.

How many children are forced to visit their abuser? How many mothers are forced to hand over their children under the threat of losing custody precisely to protect them? How many “professionals” have sent the protected subject to his executioner for not wanting to admit something very simple: that an abuser is not a good father nor can he ever be?

Because no, an abusive father is not a good father, even if he does not hit his child every day, although in general he “controls himself”, even if it is “only” psychological abuse, even if he has never injured him enough to go to the hospital, although everyone says of him that “he was a very good person and always greeted him”, even if he did not kill his children.

You don’t have to kill a child to destroy its childhood.