Justice and common sense in Divorce matters
A Judge of Mataró in order for provisional measures on guardianship and custody and exercise of parental authority in a divorce proceeding agrees that the daughter of the couple ( has not yet turned one year old) visit the father on the days set and spend the night with him even if this means interrupting breastfeeding.
Justice and common sense in matters of Divorce
I don’t know the exact details of the resolution but the news alone is surprising to say the least. The judge considers it normal to interrupt breastfeeding and replace it with bottles or porridge as if nothing had happened, and then return to the breast again.
In fact, HH even went so far as to suggest to the mother, as another possible solution, that she go to the pharmacy, buy a device to express the milk and then freeze it so that the father can feed the girl in this way. Is this serious?
Interestingly, the judicial decision does not agree that custody be shared (a criterion that is increasingly followed by the majority by our jurisprudence) but that it is granted exclusively to the mother establishing a visiting regime (nights included) in favor of the father.
It is not common for babies to adopt this overnight criterion until the minor is of a certain age, which we could set at around three years, although, obviously, each case may be different. It is one thing to spend the night, with what this entails of a change of address (even a change of cot in cases like this) and another thing are regular visits that facilitate mutual relations parents/children.
The “solution”, to give it a name, adopted by the Mataró judge not only seems to be at odds with common sense but also may be harmful to the little girl by abruptly cutting her eating habits.
The scarcity of common sense in Divorce cases
All expert opinions agree that the visiting regime, in the case of very young children, must be done gradually so that there is a period of adaptation of the minor towards the parent who does not usually have him in his power.
This implies that the visits initially be daytime or that they are at least established in a flexible way but avoiding overnight stays that substantially alter their lives. For the rest, it is not necessary to insist that our legislation establishes as a basic norm the protection of the people most in need of it, that is, minors.
The news, as it has been reported, in addition to being surprising leaves us perplexed because it also turns out that the court order does not admit any appeal as it is provisional measures so that we will have to wait for the divorce trial (main piece) to establish definitive measures that, as justice works in our beloved country, will probably be established when the girl go buy the bread by yourself.
Justice cannot be at odds with common sense
Jokes aside, justice cannot be at odds with common sense and resolutions like this force us to affirm that there are numerous occasions on which both concepts collide alarmingly with the logical social scandal that this causes.
The discretionary power of the judge in this type of decision gives rise to a thousand possibilities that allow combining the law with an adequate interpretation of it and adopting a reasonable decision that is not in conflict with the necessary protection of the most vulnerable people: minors.
It doesn’t hurt to tend to a specialization of the judges to face with greater preparation the multiple issues that they must face but wow! in the present case they will agree with me that they do not it takes a real sleight of hand to just apply common sense.