Tobacco addiction can be cause for the justice to withdraw custody and guardianship of minor children. This is what has happened to him a father with smoking problems who has seen custody of his two children, aged 10 and 13, removed by sentence that he had shared with his ex-wife.
In effect, the judgment of the Provincial Court of Córdoba (whose full text may check here), notes that The reason for the extinction of the rights of the father is the addiction of the parent, which seriously harms the health of the children. As noted, children "do not have to endure a smoke-laden environment" for the smoking of their parent.
The situation, explained the magistrates, was told during the trial by the children themselves, spontaneously and without any signs of manipulation. Although in no case did they complain about joint custody, the specialists who examined them said they were very concerned about the risk to the health of the children. The The oldest of the brothers told them that he had to sleep with the air conditioning put because the father had been smoking in the room.
For the judge this attitude of the father he showed his irresponsibility. He goes on to say that he does not protect the health of his children and acts "without looking at anything other than his addiction." This was the reason why the mother had filed the lawsuit requesting that the custody of minors be assigned exclusively.
The judgment declares that Minors should be protected in their home "from what respect to what society takes great care to protect for any citizen", major or minor, in public places, schools or work centers.
For all these reasons, custody is granted to the mother, although establishes a regime of visits and stays in school holidays in favor of the father with the warning that he must abstain from smoking in closed places if they are present. He also sets his obligation to spend a monthly pension of 150 euros for each child, even though the man alleged during the trial that he had trouble finding work due to a Ailment in the foot that made it difficult to wear shoes. However, the magistrates do not take this excuse into account, since, as he observes, during his appearance he did not see any difficulty of movement.