A court appearance in the Violence Against Women jurisdiction raised questions about the conduct and family aftermath surrounding a case in Sueca involving a man named José Antonio AC. He was arrested in August after an alleged incident of abuse against his ex-wife and was later brought before a judge tied to both criminal and civil proceedings. The proceedings indicated that the victim herself had provided information in the police report rendered by the Cullera Civil Guard on the day of the arrest. The report, which is among the 24 sheets it contains, highlights the victim’s statement as one of its central elements. In one part of the testimony, a court representative asked whether there had been prior convictions or legal actions related to such acts, to which the victim replied that there was a divorce proceeding in the Sueca courts. A few questions later, the judge asked about any ongoing judicial processes or divorce matters, and the answer again pointed to a divorce proceeding.
These details were acknowledged by the regional high court on the following Monday, confirming that two separate legal tracks were in motion: one addressing the abuse, the other the divorce. The two paths had progressed independently, with neither spouse informing the other about the abuse case. As a result, a joint custody arrangement was granted by mutual agreement, because neither party disclosed the abuse proceedings to the other. The police report, which was reviewed by Levante-EMV and published by a media group within the same network, makes clear that the first awareness of these proceedings came from Gender Violence authorities, while the victim indicated that a divorce had already been filed in a different court.
The comprehensive law on gender-based violence stipulates that courts handle both criminal and civil aspects of such cases. This includes measures related to child custody or residency, housing, alimony, and even divorce. Consequently, the court that convicted the alleged abuser should have informed the relevant authorities about any ongoing divorce proceedings to prevent a decision that would conflict with the abuse case. If there had been a conviction or active investigation for ill-treatment, it could have affected joint custody outcomes.
The arrest of José Antonio AC in August occurred in Cullera, where his wife and child later relocated. The couple’s son, George, aged ten, was part of the family arrangement at that time. Reports note that the mother was granted a temporary period of supervised contact before the arrest, and that the father’s behavior surrounding drinking and custody disputes appeared to escalate. On the day following the arrest, the Civil Guard handed the case to the Violence Against Women court in Sueca.
Evidence from February previously documented an incident in which the man allegedly grabbed his partner by the neck as she announced plans to end the relationship, an act that occurred when tensions were already high. In a related disposition, the defendant accepted a partial admission of responsibility, which led to a reduction of penalties: instead of 60 days of social work, the sentence was reduced to 40 days; eight months of restricted freedom in a 200-meter radius with a deadline later, and a 16-month prohibition on possession of weapons were imposed. The case thus underscores how intertwined criminal acts and family-law decisions can influence custody outcomes, and how timely, coordinated information sharing between jurisdictions is crucial for protecting victims and their children.