The Constitution and Legislation Commission of the Chamber of Senators analyzes this Tuesday, July 12, the bill of the ruling party referring to the “Co-responsibility in the upbringing” of minors, known as “Shared Tenancy”, and which regulates the actions of the Justice in cases of separated couples with dependent children who are unable to agree on a tenure regime between the parties.
It is an initiative that has generated the rejection of the Broad Front and social organizations.
From the ruling party, the senator of the National Party Carmen Asiaín said that the new wording that was given to the bill “is much more guaranteeing than the original initiative.”
In statements to the public media, Asiaín stated that there is a discrepancy with the Broad Front regarding the concept of shared ownership. “The discrepancies hovered over what to demand before coming to this regime, under what circumstances and how.”
The nationalist legislator said that international conventions on both children’s rights and human rights “establish that both parents are co-responsible for education, upbringing and all the duties they must fulfill with respect to their minor children.”
“We try to land a concept that comes from the human rights conventions in something concrete, in a specific situation that is the separation of the parents and that this does not result in the separation of the children. The judges, statistically, do not assign this possibility. The traditional in our country continues to be a cultural model where, in general, the entire burden is transferred to women. It is not equitable in the distribution of tasks, ”she said.
Discrepancy
For her part, the Frente Amplio senator Silvia Nane questioned that article 2 of the project “amends the Code for Children and Adolescents, saying that they will only be grounds for loss of parental authority, those established in article 285 of the Civil Code” (it is provides that parents may lose parental authority at the request of a party, following a ruling by the competent Judge, in cases of conviction for crimes against their parents, depravity or abandonment, among others).
He added that article 2 said that the causes of loss of parental authority were “only” by article 285 of the Civil Code, for which the reasons of article 284 would be excluded, which are, “neither more nor less than violent crimes against daughters and sons, crimes of pimping against daughters and sons or femicide or attempted femicide with the mother of the sons or daughters.”
Nane also stated that the FA opposes the project, because “precautionary aspects provided by Law 19,580 on Gender-Based Violence are modified, to indicate to the judicial system that it can decide not to suspend the visitation regime in the event of a complaint of gender-based violence. ”.
He assured that, according to figures from the Comprehensive System for the Protection of Children and Adolescents against Violence (SIPIAV), between 2020 and 2021, reported situations of violence against children and adolescents grew by 7,305 cases.
