non-compliance with visits
To enforce the right to coexistence between the parent and the minor, the 1st Family and Succession Court of the Regional Court of Santana, in São Paulo, declared the practice of parental alienation and handed over custody of a child to his father.
The father claimed that the mother deprived him of a healthy relationship with his son, as she repeatedly and purposefully failed to comply with the visitation regime established in the divorce action. He also pointed out that he spent more than two years without contact with the child and that the mother tries to destroy the father figure in front of her son.
According to reports and documents present in the file, on visiting days, the mother was absent with her son and prevented the father from seeing him. As a result, many visits are now accompanied by a court official. When the court stopped issuing the warrants that determined the officer’s presence, the visits were again violated. Three conciliation hearings were scheduled, but there was no agreement between the parties.
In the new decision, judge Vincenzo Bruno Formica Filho said that the fulfillment of the visits was “extremely hampered by the belligerent stance” of the mother, who “demonstrated a soldier against the implementation” of contact between father and son.
The court tried to apply “consensual, coercive and mandatory alternatives”, such as attempts at conciliation, orders for monitoring by a court official, the imposition of fines and the establishment of visits via video call. But “several court decisions were disregarded under evasive justifications”.
According to Formica Filho, the technical studies carried out in the case did not indicate “any moral and financial fact that prevents the parent from having the minor in their company”. In other words, the father “has the right to a healthy relationship with the minor”, but this right was being disrespected.
Based on technical studies and other documents, the judge found the practice of parental alienation by the mother. This was demonstrated not only by the lack of visits, but also by the son’s recent rejection of contact with his father.
According to the reports, the boy “said some things suggestive of adult influence in order to harm his relationship with his parent”, seemed committed to conveying a negative image of his father during an interview, presented aversion to his father without justifying it and He demonstrated that he believes that his mother’s boyfriend is his real father.
The parent was represented by the lawyer Ana Carolina Silveira Akel.