A single man has been acquitted of the offense of unjustified harassment and assault in the home, which he was accused of by his 13-year-old daughter, whom he verbally abused, yelled at and teased for constantly checking her cellphone without living around take care of the family, not even during a date at the restaurant. Judge Carlos Suárez-Mira, head of A Coruña’s Investigative Court No. 3, is using the ruling in this specific case to reflect on those restaurant tables where parents and children ignore each other while focusing their attention on their mobile devices, and on to recall the rights of parents and the duties of children as set out in the Civil Code: “The right of parents to punish their underage children remains, as does the obligation of children to obey their parents as long as they are under stand up to her violence.” , and always respect her.” The judge ironically stated that the man faced the modern dilemma of letting the girl do what “she wanted”, having her scolded as she did, or “ to call the Civil Guard”. The judge understands the man did “the sensible thing” and had no intention of harming his daughter, with whom he has always gotten on badly.
The events took place between February 4 and 6, 2022, when the defendant’s two daughters were spending the weekend at their paternal grandparents’ home, where they would normally conduct visitation arrangements when the man gave birth to the girls. On Friday, the verdict says, the eldest daughter spent the entire time of a family dinner in a restaurant with her head down, “writing cellphone messages to third parties and ignoring her father and sister.” They had already arrived at the premises and things got worse when the father said things like “don’t come for that” or “you’re making my life bitter” which made the girl feel “humiliated”. He took the device from her at the time because he understood that it was a rebellious situation and that for this reason he had to “get serious and punish her without being able to use the cellphone”.
More information
The next day, the man returned home at noon after spending the morning handing out bread (his job) to talk to his angry daughter and go out for a drink. But the minor “still lay in bed with his cellphone and refused to accompany him.” “I’m your dad, you get up and we’ll go have a drink,” he snapped. The verdict went on to say that the defendant grabbed her arms and lifted her off the bed while she kicked him in light of the “renewed rejection of the girl.” After the grandfather and little sister arrived from the lower floor, the four, alarmed by the screams, went into the kitchen of the house, where the accused continued to yell at his daughter, who continued to disrespect him. After taking the best to a health center, the mother accompanied her daughter to file a complaint.
The judge breaks down the facts of the verdict to assess “whether it is about the fact that she yelled at a 13-year-old daughter who is completely ignoring her father and in apparent disrespect towards him and her sister while chatting with her.” Dedicated to Third Parties.” removed from the mobile device, and even chiding her for telling her that it would be better for her not to come, or for telling her that with this attitude she is making her life bitter, constitutes a crime of unjustified molestation of a minor”. The judge replies: It is not a crime because the father has to educate and because there is a right to reform. And he reflects on his own experience: “Every day and at any time we see in any restaurant, cafeteria or venue, children of all ages stare intently – if not obsessively – at the screens of their electronic devices and are totally unaware of their surroundings, which includes parents and relatives who do not even look at them or whom they don’t even listen. And that’s if they’re not the ones constantly checking their phones between meals. But if someone – finally – takes the responsible stance of censoring this collection of engrossed netizens, apparently they shouldn’t be considered a criminal, even if they do so vehemently.”
The accused, writes Carlos Suárez-Mira, could have refrained from educating his daughter, “allowing her to do what she wanted”, or reprimanding her for behaving correctly, or calling the Guardia Civil post and be able to ask for their meritorious help in this task”. The judge emphasizes that in his opinion the man “opted for the most reasonable position” and emphasizes that “the right of rectification would be established as a justification and would lead to the same result: Acquitted of the crime of unjustified domestic harassment.” The minor had applied for a one-year prison sentence for her father, a two-year restraining order and three years’ removal of parental authority.
What affects most is what happens closer. Subscribe so you don’t miss anything.
subscribe to