Hours after the political whirlwind that has shaken La Moneda, among other points, due to the somersault that President Boric took at the last minute when proposing the lawyer Ángel Valencia for his ratification as National Prosecutor before the Senate, to the already well-known judicial representations that the candidate Valencia has made of defendants linked to issues of corruption, violation of Human Rights and sexual crimes against women, now there are records of the harsh confrontation that he had in Family Courts with his ex-wife, who sued him for non-payment of alimony for his three children, a situation for which, at the time, the Second Family Court ordered his detention and arrest.
The name of the lawyer, the letter chosen by President Gabriel Boric to direct the Public Ministry, will be defended by the Government in the Constitution Commission of the Senate this Monday, January 9 at 11:00 am, and then voted on in the Chamber at 4:00 pm. Below is a chronology of the events that involved Ángel Valencia as a child support debtor.
A document dated October 18, 2006, confirms a request for liquidation of alimony made by the lawyer María Díaz Paredes, on behalf of Vivian Massardo Carvajal, realizing that Ángel Valencia Vásquez did not comply with the alimony established by the court, along with requesting the issuance of an arrest warrant against the defendant, for the difference owed ($4,261,607).
Ángel Valencia had been sued for alimony since October 2001 by his ex-spouse Vivian Massardo, based on the fact that “he does not provide what is necessary for the adequate subsistence of his three children.”
Through writings presented by the legal firm Espina, Zepeda, Acosta, Rodríguez and Tavolari, of which Ángel Valencia was a part, an attempt was made to object to both the liquidation and the arrest, requesting that the figure be corrected, arguing that he had made more economic benefits than those she had received as a sentence, specifying that her children were also members of her Isapre plan and that the plaintiff used a vehicle that she owned. And, along with stating that he had a good relationship with his children, whom he took on vacation to the United States (Disney), Valencia justified that he had paid, even in excess, the alimony owed.
Valencia attacked Massardo, requested that his children be the mother’s burden in her health plan and requested the restitution of the aforementioned vehicle.
On February 22, 2007, the Second Family Court —made up of substitute judge Olga Chamorro Navia— resolved to uphold the arrest, detention, and retention requested from the Investigative Police and the General Treasury of the Republic, together with the Valencia driver’s license suspension.
Valencia delivered to the Family Court a payment formula for the owed pensions. On March 19, 2007, considering the background described above, he proposed to deliver the car as payment.
Subsequently, on April 16, 2007, Vivian Massardo requested, in order to get the defendant to pay the difference of what was owed by way of maintenance, the withholding of the Annual Income Tax refund for that year, which is practiced annually by the General Treasury of the Republic. It was argued that the defendant had carried out “all possible actions in order not to fully comply with the payment of the pension set by the court” and late payments were exposed. Consequently, on April 19, 2007, a reliquidation of the owed pensions was requested, after the liquidation of October 2006, requesting a new arrest warrant against the defendant. This was also objected to by the defense of Valencia, from where they argued that their client did not oppose the withholding of the tax refund.
The settlement dated July 30, 2007 yielded a balance against the debtor of $5,495,395 and Valencia’s defense requested that the amount be corrected again, assuring that there was no breach of the obligation to pay alimony and indicating that the The debt originated from a historical readjustment “difference” that was “accepted” by the plaintiff, who —according to Valencia’s defense— did not rule on the payment plan offered.
The defense of Valencia again made reference to the fact that the plaintiff retained “unjustifiably” the vehicle owned by the lawyer, who stressed on August 3, 2007 that when practicing criminal matters as a lawyer “it cannot appear with decreed constraints.”
In response, on August 7, 2007, the Second Family Court of Santiago —this time made up of the titular judge Ana María Fuentes Medina— resolved, with respect to the objections made by the defense of Valencia, that “there is no place for inadmissible in attention to the fact that there is no debt settlement to which the defendant alludes”, adding “take it as accompanied by summons”.
This gave way to the justice upholding that Valencia had paid alimony since 2001 “without updating the amount of the parameter used”, that is, the minimum non-remunerated monthly income, although it specified that “the payment was not objected to by the food in a timely manner, producing the difference that accounts for the settlement carried out and that has motivated the constraints that are questioned, although the pension has been paid periodically and there has not been a situation of abandonment”. Therefore, it was appropriate to search for other forms of solution that, according to the court, necessarily required the holding of a hearing with the concurrence of the parties.
On September 20 of that year, through an amparo appeal, the Court resolved to annul the constraints (read arrest warrant and arrest warrant against Valencia.
Thus came October 12, 2007 and Valencia filed a claim for alimony reduction against her spouse, asking that the decreed alimony pension of 12 minimum monthly income for non-remunerative purposes be reduced, equivalent on that date to $1,114,764. , fixing the pension in the amount of six incomes or the figure determined by the court “in any case less than that established at the beginning.”
Valencia argued that Massardo received the sum of $550,000 per month via fees, however, after the divorce process and subsequent lawsuit, his liquid income would have increased to $1,500,000 as contracted personnel for a public service. Massardo is a psychologist and until then she worked as head of the organizational development and human resources unit of the Sernac national directorate, with grade 4 remuneration in the contract plant.
According to Valencia’s request, this circumstance alone would suffice to proportionally reduce the alimony decreed. In counterbalance, he maintained that his income had not changed and he even received a lower income, after going from a fee-based job at the Ministry of Justice, to the law firm that represented him. In addition, he argued that Massardo went from living in the apartment of his children’s grandparents to owning a house, while he was “reconstructing his affective life” and helping to pay a dividend with his current partner (María José Taladriz Eguiluz). The latter was supported in a report delivered on December 3, 2009. Previously, on April 3, 2008, the preparatory hearing was held with the assistance of the plaintiff, who ratified the claim.
The response to the above was evacuated “by default” from the defendant, the call for conciliation was frustrated, the object of the trial and facts to be proven were established, the evidence was offered and the parties were summoned to a new trial hearing .
Thus, the court —this time in charge of the chief judge of the Second Family Court of Santiago Pedro Maldonado Escudero— ruled on the reduction requested by Valencia on December 18, 2009, granting what was requested, setting the amount of the alimony in favor of his three children in five minimum wages ($825,000 in that year), which should be paid through withholding from the employer (the legal firm Espina, Zepeda, Acosta y Cía. Ltda.).
Finally, Valencia agreed with the plaintiff, the mother of her children, in a conciliation hearing.
From Urresti and Chahuán
As is public knowledge, Valencia’s candidacy has support both from democratic socialism -particularly from the PS- and from the opposition, through a close and long-standing link with Renovación Nacional (Alberto Espina included). In fact, senators Alfonso de Urresti (PS) and Francisco Chahuán (RN) are part of the group that supports him in the Senate.
During the discussion of Law 21,484 on parental responsibility and effective payment of alimony debts, regarding the approved National Registry of Alimony Debtors, Senator Alfonso De Urresti (PS) stated that “hopefully disqualifications for positions will be legislated of popular election in the whole line, but also those related to designation positions”.
“And there the Council of Senior Public Management will play an indicative role: if any candidate is in this registry, they simply do not qualify. And as for the applicants for public office who do not go directly through said body, they must also be evaluated” he commented From Urresti, on that occasion.
Also, in the same instance, Senator Francisco Chahuán (RN) was “absolutely in favor of these disabilities.” In fact, he commented that he presented a project on the disqualifications for alimony debtors to hold public office and they are enshrined in law.
“And our Fundamental Charter should also be modified, because a food debtor cannot be the President of the Republic, or a parliamentarian, and even less one who exercises violence against women or gender violence,” said Senator RN.
Last Stagecoach Angel Val… by The counter