The judge sentenced the Sueca parricide for mistreatment but did not rule on the visits

Did it cause the lack of connection between courts the Swedish parricide in which an 11-year-old boy was killed by his father? It is a question that the observatories of gender violence must answer based on the analysis of the case and the search for possible failures. The truth is that there were two apparently contradictory sentences and information gaps.

José Antonio AC, the 47-year-old man who killed his 11-year-old son with a knife on Sunday in Sueca, was firmly convicted of mistreatment on August 12 for an episode that occurred six months earlier, in February, when he responded by grabbing his neck and stamping his wife against the wall at the moment she announced that she intended to separate from him.

The parricide admitted the facts, which entailed a criminal sentence of conformity that imposed 40 days of work in favor of the community, 16 months without being able to use or have weapons and 8 months of distance (of only 200 meters) and prohibition of communication . In that ruling he did not refer to civil measures, because he was dealing with a criminal matter.

For this reason, the judge who replaced the head of the Court of Violence against Women of Sueca -the Court of First Instance and Instruction number 4- issued a prior order for civil measures: she left custody of Jordi, then 10 years old, in hands of both, gave custody to the mother and set an alimony for the minor of 200 euros that the father had to pay. She did not talk about the house or set a visitation schedule, as she expressly mentions in the car. Why? Because neither party requested it.

The civil jurisdiction is rogatory, which means that the judge can only rule on what they ask, either the defense, or the complainant’s lawyer or the Prosecutor’s Office (in this case, ex officio, because there was a minor involved ). As is mandatory, he gave a period of 30 days for any of these parties to initiate the civil process to adjust what was missing to be requested.

The judge of Violence did not know it, but that civil process had already begun. A month earlier, in July, Jordi’s parents had filed for divorce by mutual agreement with a provisional visitation regulation agreement until a ruling was issued.

That process, opened in the Court of First Instance and Instruction 5 of Sueca, with Family jurisdiction, should have been paralyzed as soon as the process for mistreatment was opened, since the Violence against Women courts centralize both criminal and civil decisions.

However, as there is no interconnection between the courts –unless the judges or prosecutors proactively track possible parallel proceedings, both criminal and civil– and none of the lawyers –it has not transpired whether he represented the mother in both jurisdictions or not. – warned the judges that there were two parallel proceedings, the divorce petition continued on its way.

Thus, the Family judge, oblivious to the conviction for mistreatment that paralyzed her case and that should have led her to refrain in favor of the Violence against Women, issued in September, a month after the conviction for sexist violence, the ruling on the divorce in which “both spouses ratified the regulatory agreement presented in July that established shared custody,” the TSJCV reported yesterday in a statement.

Expert judges and prosecutors in sexist violence consulted yesterday by Raise-EMV, medium that belongs to the same editorial group as this newspaper, emphasize the fact that none of the lawyers involved in both processes communicated the existence of the other procedure to the respective judges. “It is not explained that the lawyers, who are the ones who speak, together with the prosecutor, when requesting criminal and civil measures, did not communicate that fact. It is quite unusual. The normal thing is that the opposite occurs, that there is a strong interest in noticing that there is another procedure to melt it down and, normally, to obtain better conditions for the victim”.

But it is also a reality that there is no informative connection between the courts, and even less so, in different jurisdictions. Some admit that imposing an alert system that informs the Violence Against Women of civil proceedings and vice versa could be a good solution, while the majority bet on more personal formulas, such as including in the protocols that lawyers be inquired if there are other civil procedures for it to be reported to the corresponding court – it is quite common for abuse to occur after the separation has begun, since many sexist attacks are derived from that decision of the woman – or even the Prosecutor’s Office responsible for that communication.

“It would not be out of place,” some of the sources consulted argue, “for this data crossing management to be carried out through the deanships, which centralize the information of all the courts.”

What there is agreement on is the need to increase interconnection and communication, either with one of these systems or with a combination of all of them. “Even so,” recalls a judge, “we must be clear that a murder cannot be attributed to a single cause. And that, while it is true that the more preventive measures that are adopted, the better the results, the real person responsible is the one who decides to kill and Bush”.

As announced yesterday Raise-EMVconsternation has reigned since yesterday in swedishbut above all in Cullera, after the murder of the 11-year-old boy at the hands of his father in his house in the capital of Ribera Baixa, just before handing it over to his mother, a native of the second riverside municipality.

This new episode of vicarious violence, the one that men exert on their children to harm their mothers, occurred, as announced yesterday exclusively Raise-EMVbetween 3:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. at number 3 of the Rafael Hervás street, in Suecain the house of the presumed parricide, Jose Antonio AC, 47 years oldduring the weekend that he had judicially assigned.

jordi I was an only child and on Friday there was turned 11 years old. On Friday, the day of his birthday, the little boy went with his father because this weekend he had to be with his father, who had to deliver him back to his mother yesterday, after eating.

Given the the abuser did not answer the calls, the woman, increasingly alarmed, went to his house, in Sueca. Despite ringing the bell for minutes, no one answered. His impatience and her fear grew by the moment. “We heard her yelling ‘Toni! Toni!’ Her ex-husband’s name. And then the child’s.” But nobody responded.

Desperate and out of her mind, she called 112 and asked someone to help her. Moments later the first patrol of the Swedish Civil Guard arrived. The agents managed to enter the interior, but the crime was consummated. The guards found the boy deceased, with several bleeding wounds inflicted with a table knife.

The mother had to be treated for an anxiety crisis by the SAMU medical team that traveled to the scene, which ended up transferring her to La Ribera Hospital in an ambulance to be able to treat her properly.

Meanwhile, the parricide was handcuffed and taken to the Swedish Civil Guard barracks, where he remains detained until he is brought, probably tomorrow morning, before the judge handling the case, the head of Sueca’s Court of Instruction number 3, who was on duty yesterday.

Although the police risk appreciated after the complaint of mistreatment filed last August with the Civil Guard had been classified as “low”, the reality was different. the neighbors of Jose Antonio AC they confess broken. A woman who knew the alleged parricide and the situation of the family, does not hesitate to break the silence: “He said he was going to kill him and he has done it.”

There is dismay and disbelief, but above all anger. And pain. As in almost every episode of vicarious Violence, José Antonio AC, Toni for those who know him, had announced, in his own way, what he was going to do: “He said he was going to hit her where it hurt the most and he did it,” laments the same neighbor.

And it is that rage that pushes them into the following questions in the air: “Why hasn’t he thrown himself out the window?” or “how can he be such a son of a bitch to kill a child?”.

Jordi’s murder, which I was in 5th grade at the Sueca Christian Union school, has provoked communiqués of revulsion and rejection on the part of the neighborhoods of Sueca and Cullera, but also of both municipalities. The mayor of the second has already decreed two days of mourning (today and tomorrow), has harshly condemned “this new sexist crime” after offering his help to the mother and has planned a rally before the town hall for today at 8:00 p.m.

The one from Sueca, for his part, repudiated what happened and has also offered his help and support to the mother, in addition to urgently convening the Governing Board to decide today How many days of mourning will they fix?