Marta Ariste is the lawyer for the mother of Leo, the two-year-old boy killed by his father in August 2021 and who became the first victim of vicarious violence in Catalonia.
When you took up Leo’s cause, there were 42 children killed by vicarious violence in Spain. There are already more than 50. Are you acting diligently?
No. Many times in the family or violence against women courts we explain situations or indications that make us think we need to act: suspend visits or withdraw shared custody. We come across cases in which the minors explain that the father may have engaged in some suspicious practice. Or for the child to poop on it. Or that he has marks on his back or that he cries because he doesn’t want to go with his father. Children whose tracksuits have been ripped off by their father so that they go to school with torn tracksuits. Things that seem everyday or small details. But in practice they are things that must be valued. The most surprising thing is that the law, Catalan and Spanish, provides that visits can be suspended or that there is no shared custody in cases where either there is a complaint or criminal proceedings opened against the father or even with indications only.
And what happens?
That nothing is suspended without a complaint. But many times complaints are not filed for fear of the father’s reaction, because the minor must continue to be with him and the mother is afraid of what will happen to him. Apart from institutional violence. How are women treated in court? Because many times they explain things and treat them as exaggerated.
Legally it says that a custody can be stopped with evidence.
Yes. But there are two parallel worlds. The law provides for it, but in practice the internal regulations of the courts are that without a complaint nothing is processed.
Are there exceptions and cases in which it is acted upon?
Very few In some case of a real threat by the father to take the children to another country, for example, it has been achieved that at least the visits are through a meeting point, or in some case where there are more indications clear You can start with controlled visitation, but you can get to a point where it’s out of control because the father can end up doing whatever he wants.
Are children sufficiently protected in separation processes?
Absolutely not. There is a lot of work to be done. They are made to go through a lot of processes and maybe it should be made simpler or they declare once. Sometimes it’s necessary, but other times it’s not and it’s done tactfully. And sometimes they explain their fears in a specific environment: to a friend or a teacher. But this statement is of no use. If a girl does not explain 200 times in court that her father touched her vulva, for example, it is not valid. Children are blocked. Sometimes the abuser tells them to keep it a secret or not to tell the mother.
Can an abuser be prevented from seeing his children?
It is very difficult. There will likely continue to be visitation, even shared custody. Physical violence is easier to accredit, but the problem is that in most cases it is psychological, verbal… Or going on a rampage through the children. And if you don’t explain it, and the court doesn’t believe you, these parents continue to see the children.
If abuse is proven, can custody be reversed?
It must be proven and reported. Without that, the court’s rule is to do nothing. If the court sees that there is an indication or a suspicion of any type of violence against the mother or the child what is sometimes done is a quick hearing to assess it. But all this is done quickly, without being able to prepare anything. And sometimes at that point the victim gets stuck. He has a trauma and it is not easy to explain things. Maybe at that moment he cannot explain the 200 things that have happened. And then nothing happens. And you are forced to reach agreements even many times, forced agreements even.
You started litigation so that Leo wouldn’t carry his killer’s last name, but you denounced the legal loophole. Has the situation improved?
We couldn’t get him buried without that last name. We got it later. But it did set a precedent. Leo died in August 2021 and in April of that same year a legislative change was made that allowed children of murdered women to be able to change their surnames, even as a form of protection and to be able to disassociate the name of his killer. But in our case there was a legal gap, because the child had died. We had to make requests in an extraordinary way and finally the change was achieved in May 2022 by a resolution through a ministerial order of the Minister of Justice at the time, Pilar Llop, who authorized the change of surnames. The law was not changed, but there is a precedent. And the change is not automatic, but I understand that the procedure will now be more agile.
The mother had an administrative trip.
indeed And it still continues. He cannot grieve peacefully because he constantly receives resolutions or information. Just before Christmas he received a notification from the State denying him, once again, financial aid as a direct victim. When I talk about humanizing courts, I also add doing the same to the administrations so that every decision is not received by a robot. She is received by a mother who is terribly hurt.
Have you been denied burial expenses?
Yes. I understand that the Department of Feminism provides a match for future cases, but she has had to pay for her son’s funeral. And he had a few months of psychological support, but very little, real support is needed. A follow up