Iván Evair Saldaña
La Jornada Newspaper
Friday, January 30, 2026, p. 11
Videorecording psychological interviews with minors in custody trials is constitutionally valid, as long as strict rules are followed to protect their rights, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) determined yesterday unanimously.
The criterion, derived from a project by Loretta Ortiz, indicates that the use of technology in these cases seeks to avoid revictimization, by preventing minors from testifying again, and requires compliance with a “protective video recording” standard of five requirements.
The first is to have an individualized technical justification prepared by specialists, to guarantee that the minor is informed according to his or her age and that his or her opinion is heard; The interview must be carried out in a protective environment, such as a Gesell chamber, and ensure confidentiality with exclusive protection of the court; Likewise, the copying or dissemination of the materials is prohibited, and they must be destroyed or the anonymity of those involved must be guaranteed at the conclusion of the process.
Finally, the judge must explain how he used the video to support his decision and the parties will only be able to consult it within the court, under supervision and without obtaining copies.
The case, analyzed by the Court in the protection under review 397/2024, arose from a dispute over the custody of two minors. In 2017, the father requested that the mother’s legal incapacity and custody of the children be declared. Although they later agreed to joint custody, in 2020 the mother moved them to Querétaro and prevented contact with the father, which led to a process that left the minors in her care. In 2022, in another trial to modify the agreement, psychological evaluations were ordered for parents and children.
At the mother’s request, a court ordered the psychological interviews of the minors to be videotaped. The father challenged the measure, arguing that it violates the privacy of minors, could be used improperly and lead to re-victimization, but the decision was confirmed on appeal in 2023. He then promoted an amparo, which was rejected, so the case reached the Supreme Court.
