As a lawyer specialized in Family Law and international child abduction, I feel it is necessary to express my concern over the recent statements made by the Government regarding the Juana Rivas ruling.

The Minister for Children, Sira Rego, and the former Minister for Equality, Irene Montero, have publicly expressed their disagreement with final judicial decisions, even going so far as to label as unjust certain rulings issued by competent judges. While these statements may reflect a legitimate political sensitivity, they go beyond the institutional framework and put at risk the principle of separation of powers, which is a cornerstone of our rule of law.

As a professional who has worked on complex international child abduction cases, I know that each judicial decision involves a thorough analysis of international treaties, conventions such as The Hague Convention of 1980, psychosocial reports, documentary and witness evidence, and often a very difficult decision-making process. For this reason, publicly questioning the work and rulings of the judiciary without having access to the full case file (which, for obvious reasons, they cannot have) not only misinforms the public, but also undermines trust in the judicial system—already considerably discredited.

Defending the rights of children and of women who are victims of violence is a cause I share and uphold every day in my professional practice. However, that defense must be carried out with institutional respect, promoting legislative reform where necessary, and not through statements that could be interpreted as political pressure on judges and magistrates.

I do not know whether the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) is considering offering protection to the judge handling the case in response to what may be considered political pressure. This situation is serious and deserves deep reflection by all parties involved.

Based on my experience, I affirm that justice must not—and cannot—be used as a political tool. Judges must be able to rule independently, free from interference or external pressures. And public officials, no matter how legitimate their convictions may be, must act with institutional responsibility.

Minister Sira Rego has stated that the Government will respond to the Juana Rivas case by reforming the Comprehensive Law for the Protection of Children and Adolescents Against Violence, so that children are heard by the justice system. (Image: RTVE)

Several questions arise for me:

• Given that the Minister for Children traveled to Granada to meet with Juana Rivas’s son—a task normally carried out by the Judiciary and the Public Prosecutor’s Office—as a Family Law attorney I wonder if she will do the same for all children and adolescents facing complex situations involving loyalty conflicts or alleged manipulation by one of their parents.
• From now on, will the Constitutional Court resolve requests for precautionary suspension of visitation regimes in high-risk cases within 24 hours?
• Will hearings be scheduled within three days to decide on the enforcement of a foreign judicial ruling?
• Will Minister Félix Bolaños suspend mandatory ADR procedures (MASC), as requested by AEAFA, due to the harm they cause in proceedings involving minors?

I would love for the answer to be yes, but sadly, it won’t be. The children and adolescents who cannot be used for political purposes will continue to endure lack of resources, courtroom hearings, excessively long proceedings, and nearly eight months of waiting in Barcelona for a psychosocial report—once again due to a shortage of psychologists and social workers. And now, on top of that, they will also have to endure MASC.

In this context, it is important to recall that the role of judges is to judge and enforce what has been judged. And that is exactly what must be done with the final ruling issued by the Italian courts, which is directly enforceable in Spain.

The enforcement of this decision cannot depend on the child’s emotional state, however understandable it may be after more than seven years of conflict and two unlawful retentions.

We must not forget that, according to media sources, in 2018 the Italian court requested a 177-page psychological expert report. This report was submitted to the Italian court and recommended granting sole custody to the father. It also warned of the risk that the mother’s psychological difficulties could negatively affect the child’s emotional well-being and perception of the father, generating a conflicted loyalty environment.

In this sense, the child’s refusal to reestablish contact with the father may be due to a phenomenon known as “false memory,” which occurs when a child internalizes others’ narratives—often repeated or suggested by close surroundings—as their own, and ends up rejecting a parent without a direct, objective basis. This is not about lying, but about a distorted mental construction that requires technical intervention—not emotional indulgence or media validation.

Therefore, the enforcement of judicial decisions must be carried out promptly and firmly. Allowing time, spectacle, and political pressure to influence the execution of a final international ruling is a direct attack on the rule of law—and, paradoxically, on the best interests of the child.