The Supreme Court of Justice, gathered in the Administrative Political Chamber, refused to deliver to the Court of the eleventh judicial circuit by Miami-Dade County, Florida State, United States, the file related to the custody of a 5-year-old Venezuelan child.
Such a decision is contained in Judgment number 00475 of the Administrative Political Chamber, drafted by Judge Emilio Ramos González and signed by his colleagues Juan Carlos Hidalgo Pandares and Malachi Gil Rodríguez.
Through that sentence, the demand filed by Kevin Eduardo Blanco-Uibe is resolved to modify the custody of his five-year-old son and consequently be given to his person. That custody was held by the child’s mother since June 4, 2024, by order of the Second Court of First Instance of the Judicial Circumscription of Caracas and National International Adoption of the Judicial Circuit of Protection of Children and Adolescents.
The modification of that sentence was requested by the child’s father because he had to return from the United States to Venezuela because his investor visa was defeated. But, in addition, he said that the child does not count in the United States with a healthy environment for its spiritual development, as explained in the demand. In that nation he shared with his ex -wife the custody of the child.
” The increasingly visible behavior and addiction of the parent and the alarm state of the environment, friends, caregivers and the conditions of the child when [le] He was delivered for the fulfillment of the shared time were chaotic, he looked demacrated, he cried when he had to stay with the mother… ”, says the child’s father in the demand brief.
Once the claim for the child’s custody was received, it was interviewed in the corresponding court, on March 5, 2024. Based on that testimony of the infant, the next day, the third court of first instance of mediation, substantiation and execution of protection of children and adolescents of the judicial constituency of the metropolitan area of Caracas and national adoption national, granted “the exercise of the child’s provisional custody of this while the judgment lasts. ”
For its part, the child’s mother opposed that measure and asked the administrative political hall to declare that the Venezuelan judiciary has no jurisdiction in this case, because the residence of the minor is Miami, United States. And, consequently, that the file in the Court of the Judicial Circuit in and for Miami County, Dade, Florida.
In this regard, the aforementioned Third Court of Children’s Protection rejected such an approach exposed by the mother of the minor, because, “it is clear that the father intends to protect her son, from the cruel treatment she has been subjected to by her parent allegedly.”
In addition, that court determined that the Venezuelan judiciary does have competence to ventilate the lawsuit for the custody of the child, since it is resident in Venezuela under its father’s protection.
Such criteria is supported by the administrative political hall of the TSJ and this was reflected in Judgment 00473. In that sentence, the magistrates recalled that between Venezuela and the United States there is no treaty that regulates the concerning of family relations. Consequently, it must be governed by private international law to determine whether the Venezuelan judiciary is competent or not in the demand raised. And that is when they recalled that Creole laws in that matter privilege the best interests of the child. Based on that principle, the Chamber established that ‘»Judges and judges cannot have children and adolescents as if it were objects; They are not only subjects of law, but they must be in mind how they feel and suffer significantly as a result of a judicial process, and how a judicial decision can become fundamental in their existence; Therefore, it cannot be ordered to move from one place to another, without mediating and weighing the transformations of life that it implies ».
According to that consideration, the magistrates consider that to “provide maximum protection” to the child whose custody demands his father, “the Venezuelan judiciary must continue to know this matter.”
This taking into consideration the circumstances narrated by the plaintiff and those that appear in this file, especially related to: the alleged injuries caused by the mother to the child and the alleged addictions to which the parent is dependent; that the child is currently in Venezuela with his father; The opinion of the Interim Auxiliary Prosecutor (in charge) Nonagésima Sixta (96 °) with competence in matters of protection of the child and adolescent, in collaboration with the Centésima Fifth Prosecutor’s Office (105) with ordinary criminal competence Victims children and adolescents of the Public Ministry of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, so that a measure of protection is granted to the minor and, that the Board of Protection of Children and Adolescents dictated the aforementioned.
Based on these considerations, the Chamber declared without a place the appeal exercised by the child’s mother against the ruling of the Third Child Protection Court that gave the custody of this to his father, which was confirmed.
