The Supreme Court (TS) has annulled in a ruling the visitation regime of a Tenerife father to his daughter given the violent attitude he had with his previous partner, the disinterest he has shown towards the five-year-old girl and his serious psychiatric condition.
In principle, a strict regime of supervised visits was imposed at a meeting point that would be supervised by professionals to avoid harm to the minor, but now the Supreme Court considers that these measures are incongruous and believes that it is more convenient to subject the father to psychological treatment. to prevent the girl from having to deal with her “violent, impulsive and hostile” character.
The Supreme Court maintains that the relationship between the two can be detrimental to the daughter and therefore caution should prevail when setting up meetings, “given that dealing with someone of an aggressive and hostile nature, with serious psychological imbalances, can generate minor irreparable emotional and psychological damage.
The Prosecutor’s Office maintained that the rejection that the man shows towards the mother, whom he blames for his imprisonment, should be taken into account.
He even went so far as to say: “If I have to deny my daughter, I will do it, but I don’t even want to see her in painting, I don’t want to know anything about my daughter’s mother, she’s a bad person… when my daughter turns 18 and has freedom to see her father, because then I will begin to have contact with her and I will tell her the truth of everything”.
The relationship between the two was interrupted when the minor was one and a half years old and the father entered prison and did not restart when he served his sentence.
“I am not going to go through the Meeting Point again to see my daughter, that is not a private thing, I can neither go for a walk with her or have her alone,” he declared.
The Court took into account to take the first measures of controlled visits “the serious circumstances” that concur in the crimes committed, which were joined by psychological imbalances with a history of social and labor failures associated with drug use, as collected an expert report.
In short, he is considered an “impulsive and hostile person who is furious most of the time and freely expresses his anger and hostility.”
At first, the measures of visits supervised by professionals were imposed and at that time were considered “sufficient” to avoid any harm to the minor and ensure that relations with the girl could be normalized over time.
However, now the Supreme has annulled them and prohibits any meeting between the two.
