The Provincial Court of Madrid has confirmed the sentence to two years and four months in prison imposed on María Sevilla, the former president of the Free Childhood association, for a crime of child abduction. This is stated in a sentence, to which Europa Press has had access and which has already been appealed in cassation, in which the appeal filed by his defense is dismissed against the conviction issued by the Criminal Court number 23. The court decision had withdrawn parental authority for four years.
Sevilla was convicted of failing to comply with a sentence that granted custody to the father of her son. Since the beginning of 2017, Seville moved with his family on several occasions to hide the whereabouts of his son from the father, whom he accused on several occasions of sexual abuse against the minor, until he was arrested in March 2019 on a Villar estate de Cañas (Cuenca). The woman had been fighting a legal battle for months, but the only complaint that was successful was shelved.
In the trial, which was held on October 1, the Madrid Prosecutor’s Office requested a sentence of three and a half years in prison and another five of disqualification of parental authority. The private prosecution on behalf of her ex-husband raised the request to four and a half years, while her defense requested free acquittal.
Seville was arrested by the Police in March 2019 in the Cuenca town of Villar de Cañas, and after being brought to justice, he was released with charges. The woman had been in search and arrest since September 2018 for failing to comply with the court ruling that granted the father custody of his son.
The appeal presented by your defense, and now dismissed by the Madrid Provincial Court, requested the nullity of the entire process, due to, among other things, the lack of a judicial order from the agents to carry out surveillance of the woman before entering the farm where he was with his son. On the other hand, he argued that Sevilla did not know the content of the sentence that granted custody to the father, since the judicial procedure had not even begun when he left with his son.