Tamara Naiara, a member of the Feminist Intersocial, in dialogue with Diario La R expressed that they understand that “this bill removes guarantees and violates the rights of children. There is an issue that is real in our country and that is that shared ownership already exists. It is not understood why this regulation is being discussed now. There is a group of men that has been organized for a long time. The Intersocial in 2021 had already raised discrepancies in the Women’s Bicameral of Parliament, and the two bills that had existed so far were discussed. There it was understood that this issue is transversal, beyond political parties and the situation was classified as worrying.
In the same way, the social activist emphasized: “We are talking about dads with money who put their resources and who in some way harassed the parliamentarians, mainly those of the coalition to vote for this project. Although the two initial projects were not voted on, in the midst of the Rendering of Accounts and other discussions this issue is raised and an attempt is made to make it transcend without listening to the social organizations that pose the problematization of this situation.
In turn, he stated that “the greatest energy put into the care and upbringing of the child is always at the mother’s expense. In this sense, emphasis should be placed on creating public policies that motivate both to take responsibility for care. There is a specific article that states that when there is gender-based violence or when there are precautionary measures, visits are not suspended. Access to justice is unequal between men and women and all this depends a lot on the judge, beyond the fact that the project says that the child or adolescent will be heard, in practice they are already heard. This ordinance in some legitimate way that can, if a judge decides, violate the suspension of visits or custody due to a complaint of domestic violence.
For Naiara, “sometimes it is said: ´If he attacked the mother, he does not have to separate the father from his children.’ This is controversial because the boy or girl, when he witnesses that his mother is being violated; Is she not she is receiving violence even if she does not receive a direct hit?. Subsequently, she asked herself: “Can we guarantee that a person who exercises violence against her partner will not exercise violence against her children?”
Therefore, he stated that “to guarantee that the mother does not feel exposed when she denounces her ex-partner, the logical and normal thing should be that these visits be suspended. Here justice has to intervene and speed up processes, as well as provide more resources by virtue of the fact that the psychological investigations that are carried out have results to detect possible dangers if the relationship continues more effectively. Innovating with this bill in some way what it ends up achieving is justifying violence: it suggests that nothing happens to the child if the father exercises violence on the mother”.
With regard to the custody of the minor, he stated that “here it is decided that there is only one cause for removal of Post-State Homeland, the others that existed such as sexual abuse or pimping are not included and are crimes, it was one of the things that we most alarmed. What some national representatives raised is that this article was an error, that it was actually poorly drafted and that the other causes were not eliminated. It strikes me that there are such errors in this process, it is one of the mistakes that should never be made, we are talking about specific guarantees: if a father or mother sexually exploits their children, they should not lose their homeland Power is something irrational because there is abuse of their children. This is an issue on which all of us agree, it is very difficult for there to be a mistake in the wording in something so serious”.
