The Court of Appeals allowed the appeal for annulment filed by the father of a child and overturned the dismissal by the lower court. The boy's father had been unable to share with him on vacation. The mother changed the visitation set by a civil judge.
The Chamber III of the Criminal Cassation Chamber, composed of Judges Angela Ledesma, Liliana Eduardo Catucci and Riggi, gave rise to the appeal by the father of a child who had been prevented from sharing with the child for holidays the actions of the mother. The Chamber of Criminal Appeals had dismissed the processing. This decision was overturned and the case was returned to the court of origin to continue with the case.
In a civil court was established visitation for the holiday period by distributing the days that each parent would share with the child. Arrival date that the father must search for the child to find that neither he nor his mother were at home. As for over a month and twenty days did not have any news of where they were initiated criminal measures. The first complaint was expanded following two facts prevented from occurring later.
The complainant lodged an appeal against the decision of the Constitutional Court Criminal Chamber which provided the acquittal of the accused. The objecting considered that the dismissal was without proper foundation and that the decisions we had misunderstood the rules applicable to the case, so it was an arbitrary decision. It also highlighted the existence of a contradiction in the ruling. The court admitted that the processor had prevented contact between the father and son but attenuated the subjective element (intent) to understand it was not an intentional action because women soon agreed to surrender the child and since then no further problems with visitation.
criminal action brought by the child's father is part of the provisions of the law that regulates about 24,270 cases of impairment of contact for parents with their children. The figure for the case is Article 1 of that rule states: "shall be punished with imprisonment from one month to one year the parent or third party, illegally impedes or obstruct contact of children with parents living together. In the case of a child of ten years or a disabled person the penalty is six months to three years in prison. "
The Court of Appeals held that the procedure had been completed in an "abnormal." Casatorio The court held that it was "wrong" subjective interpretation that had made the lower court. The House Criminal justify the violation of visitation by the mother in the fact that this was "disturbed" by the frequent disagreements with the child's father. It also upheld the dismissal on the grounds that they had contact impediments continue to exist. In this sense
casatorio court emphasized that the dismissal is appropriate where the judge "has no doubt about the extinction of criminal claim of lack of accountability of the defendant or to be exempt from punishment."
The Court of Appeals stated that "Clearly, the party implicated in recognizing an obstacle and tries to erase later, the trial judge has committed a flagrant contradiction that violates the rules of sound criticism and displays only apparent rationale of judicial act and therefore arbitrary."
Based on this reasoning, the court determined that corresponded casatorio order the annulment of the decision of the Criminal Chamber. Thus, it was rather the appeal lodged by the father of the child and overturned the dismissal of the mother.
The three judges of the Court of Appeals concurred in the decision to overturn the decision of dismissal. Notably the aggregate by Judge Angela Ledesma, who joined in essence a vote of his colleagues but also stressed the importance of having clear which is the time to determine whether or not there was intent. "The subjective element required for configuring the offense under Article 1 of Law 24,270 must be examined in relation to the circumstances existing at the date of occurrence of the event would" and not the subsequent position of the accused, said the voice.
www.diariojudicial.com.ar The Chamber III of the Criminal Cassation Chamber, composed of Judges Angela Ledesma, Liliana Eduardo Catucci and Riggi, gave rise to the appeal by the father of a child who had been prevented from sharing with the child for holidays the actions of the mother. The Chamber of Criminal Appeals had dismissed the processing. This decision was overturned and the case was returned to the court of origin to continue with the case.
In a civil court was established visitation for the holiday period by distributing the days that each parent would share with the child. Arrival date that the father must search for the child to find that neither he nor his mother were at home. As for over a month and twenty days did not have any news of where they were initiated criminal measures. The first complaint was expanded following two facts prevented from occurring later.
The complainant lodged an appeal against the decision of the Constitutional Court Criminal Chamber which provided the acquittal of the accused. The objecting considered that the dismissal was without proper foundation and that the decisions we had misunderstood the rules applicable to the case, so it was an arbitrary decision. It also highlighted the existence of a contradiction in the ruling. The court admitted that the processor had prevented contact between the father and son but attenuated the subjective element (intent) to understand it was not an intentional action because women soon agreed to surrender the child and since then no further problems with visitation.
criminal action brought by the child's father is part of the provisions of the law that regulates about 24,270 cases of impairment of contact for parents with their children. The figure for the case is Article 1 of that rule states: "shall be punished with imprisonment from one month to one year the parent or third party, illegally impedes or obstruct contact of children with parents living together. In the case of a child of ten years or a disabled person the penalty is six months to three years in prison. "
The Court of Appeals held that the procedure had been completed in an "abnormal." Casatorio The court held that it was "wrong" subjective interpretation that had made the lower court. The House Criminal justify the violation of visitation by the mother in the fact that this was "disturbed" by the frequent disagreements with the child's father. It also upheld the dismissal on the grounds that they had contact impediments continue to exist. In this sense
casatorio court emphasized that the dismissal is appropriate where the judge "has no doubt about the extinction of criminal claim of lack of accountability of the defendant or to be exempt from punishment."
The Court of Appeals stated that "Clearly, the party implicated in recognizing an obstacle and tries to erase later, the trial judge has committed a flagrant contradiction that violates the rules of sound criticism and displays only apparent rationale of judicial act and therefore arbitrary."
Based on this reasoning, the court determined that corresponded casatorio order the annulment of the decision of the Criminal Chamber. Thus, it was rather the appeal lodged by the father of the child and overturned the dismissal of the mother.
The three judges of the Court of Appeals concurred in the decision to overturn the decision of dismissal. Notably the aggregate by Judge Angela Ledesma, who joined in essence a vote of his colleagues but also stressed the importance of having clear which is the time to determine whether or not there was intent. "The subjective element required for configuring the offense under Article 1 of Law 24,270 must be examined in relation to the circumstances existing at the date of occurrence of the event would" and not the subsequent position of the accused, said the voice.
FOR MORE INFORMATION DO NOT HESITATE to contact the telephone (0342) 489.6831 or (0342) 155.472616, or e-mail: @ gmail.com or ma_sandria@yahoo.com.ar abogado.mas
