Investigation and custody dispute over an underage child
More than a month has passed since the incident and the subsequent criminal investigation left a cloud over the family. The social services system has not yet returned custody and has not set a visitation schedule, leaving the parent unable to see the child. “We haven’t seen him since February because the court issued a restraining order”, the mother explained. She wondered why, if Justice has formed a view, access to her son remains blocked.
“My partner and I have passed all the tests the authorities required, and the court has confirmed our clean record”, she said. “Our son was taken from us without any tangible evidence. Now that our innocence is confirmed, the child still isn’t returned.” The mother emphasized that the family’s life has been deeply affected, and she and her partner hope for a swift resolution.
The newspaper reached out to Social Services for comment. Officials stated only that the child was with another relative at the moment and offered no further explanation. The family received a notice that the Ministry considered the reports insufficient and requested additional information. “If we did nothing wrong, why is the investigation proceeding now?” wondered the father. Both parents signaled willingness to appear in court again, even as they fear a prolonged process that could keep them apart from their son for an extended period.
“They took our son without showing a single piece of evidence, and now they are not giving him back”
The events date back to February when an acquaintance reported concerns about the couple, claiming drug-related parties were held in the home and that minors had access to inappropriate material. The initial complaint led to the parents’ arrest and the child being placed in protective custody. The mother had recently experienced a nervous breakdown, which prompted the relative to stay with the child while the police continued their inquiry. The family includes two other children, one of whom remains with the father, Estefanía’s former partner.
Within the scope of the investigation, Social Services has maintained guardianship over the child. The warrant and the ongoing judicial process prevented contact, while witnesses linked to the couple were questioned. Both the parents and the couple’s other children were involved as witnesses during the inquiry.
Investigation
After five months, the magistrate closed the case at the prosecutor’s request, noting there was insufficient evidence to support the initial allegations. The judge acknowledged that none of the testimonies confirmed neglect of the two minor children in terms of work, meals, hygiene, or other caregiving duties. There were contradictory statements among witnesses about potential endangerment at one of the parties. The court did not establish proof that the couple watched pornography in front of the underage child, though it did not completely rule out the possibility due to potential device syncing issues. There was also no evidence of drug dealing at the home.
“If we haven’t done anything, why are they asking us to investigate further now?”
The judge noted that a complainant had personally appeared in court to report ongoing investigations and affirmed that the mother had been considered a good parent. The order of provisional dismissal lifted all active injunctions against the couple, though it specified that safeguards in the administrative domain remained in place. The file did not automatically restore custody of the child, and no immediate return was ordered at that time.
Generalitat Advocacy’s opposition
The Chief Prosecutor’s Office for the Generalitat had opposed the dismissal, while other prosecutors sought to continue the investigation due to alleged insufficient evidence. Lawyers requested an extension to broaden the inquiry, a move the judge rejected, emphasizing the need to resolve the matter without delay. The Generalitat participated as a formal charge in the case and acted on behalf of the child’s interests. When the court and prosecutor concluded the investigation was thorough, they rejected efforts to extend the investigation further. The decision remained subject to appeal, and the matter was still open at the time of reporting, with August approaching.
The proceedings illustrate the tension between protecting a child’s welfare and ensuring due process for the parents involved. The case underscores how courts balance evidence, witness credibility, and safeguarding measures while determining custody outcomes and visitation rights. The ongoing outcome will determine whether the child can be reunified with the family or remain under social guardianship until further notice.
In this case, the legal process has highlighted how carefully authorities must navigate claims of neglect and potential danger, the need for corroborating evidence, and the rights of parents who maintain their innocence while the investigation proceeds. The unresolved questions and the family’s desire for reunification continue to shape discussions around child protection and judicial timetables in similar cases. [Source: Court records]