The constitutional Court has rejected Vox's appeal against the legal reform of 2021 that prohibited, among other things, that a father accused of mistreatment or sexist violence could have a visitation regime with his children. Unanimously, the plenary session rejects the right-wing party's appeal and explains that this decision will, in any case, be in the hands of a judge who "will have to do so through a reasoned resolution" and not a "restriction of freedoms", as alleged. vox.
The Government incorporates into the childhood law the mandatory suspension of the visitation regime if the father has a protection order for gender violence
This measure, says the Constitutional Court, "lacks automaticity and does not legally predetermine the deprivation of the visiting or stay regime for any of the parents." For the plenary, this point of the new Civil Code does not prevent a judge, in any case, from having to assess the specific circumstances of each case: "It does not limit the possibility that the judicial body assesses the seriousness, nature and scope of the crime that it is attributed to a parent as well as the specific circumstances of the case”, he explains.
The fourth paragraph of article 94 of the Civil Code establishes that "the establishment of a visit or stay regime will not proceed, and if it exists, it will be suspended" when a parent "is involved in a criminal proceeding initiated for attempting against life, physical integrity freedom, moral integrity or sexual freedom and indemnity of the other spouse or their children”. Nor if the judges warn "the existence of well-founded indications of domestic or gender violence" although they may do so "in the best interests of the minor or in the will, desires and preferences of the elderly with disabilities in need of support and prior evaluation of the situation of the parent-child relationship.