It seems quite clear that the patriarchal society that reigned decades ago (and continues to do so now) is gradually changing (at a snail's pace) towards a more egalitarian and inclusive society in which fathers and mothers have the same responsibilities as regards Your children are concerned. He walks, which does not mean that it has been achieved yet, and proof of this is when such inexplicable cases occur as the one we are telling you today.
Silvia Banegas She is a Spanish woman who had a son with a Mexican man. He has not seen his son for two years because a judge considered that he did not behave as a traditional mother should: What if you take custody of your child for not being a traditional mother?
As we read in Cadena Ser, a judge took custody of his son in 2010 because he considered that did not fulfill the role of traditional mother. In addition, he urged him to receive psychological therapy to be able to offer his son "love and love according to Mexican customs and to accept traditional gender roles."
He must behave like a woman of a lifetime
It all started ten years ago, when Silvia married a Mexican in Spain. After a while they went to live in Mexico, where their son was born. When the child was two years old the couple decided to separate, and in the fight for custody of the child, the father of the child reported in the divorce lawsuit that she thought it would not help him:
He said that I was topless, that I did not want to baptize the child, that one day I sent him to wash the dishes, that he was shouting at him ...
However, when the trial was held, Judge 42 of the Family Court of the Superior Court of Justice of the Federal District showed that there are people for whom time does not pass (or rather, for whom machismo does not pass):
The judge said that I could not take care of my son because I am an atheist, because I do not have the role of a submissive woman and therefore I had to go to therapy to assume Mexican traditions and gender roles.
A final attempt in Spanish justice
The harassment that the ex-husband and his family submitted to Silvia made him get a restraining order before the trial, and this caused him even more surprise when he saw the judge's sentence, feeling completely unprotected. He decided to return to Spain with the little one and make a final attempt here. However, the magistrate of court number 24 of Madrid Juan Pablo González del Pozo decided in 2014 that the boy had to return to Mexico with his father, since there was a complaint of the ex-husband for child abduction. He was given five minutes to say goodbye to his son and since then he has not seen him again.
Now Silvia cannot travel to Mexico because she is accused of having taken the child without custody, and cannot see her son because, although the Spanish judge established that mother and son could communicate daily, the father does not fulfill these obligations and nobody does anything to fix it.
Women's Link Worldwide Garrote Award
Silvia's sentence has received the Garrote award which is granted annually by the NGO Women's Link Worldwide to make visible and criticize judicial decisions that negatively affect women in which discrimination against women and girls can be seen.
In addition, he is in contact with a Mexican women's association that is studying the possibility of taking his case to CEDAW, the UN Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Do we turn it around?
Sometimes it is worth going around the tortilla to imagine how absurd it is that people who should be impartial are not; that people who must judge based on equal rights, pretend that the interested parties behave as they think is right:
A woman marries a man and they have a son. She has a job with a salary higher than the father's and they decide that the most logical thing is for him to take the leave to take care of the baby. When the boy is two years old they separate and she argues at the trial that he did not behave like a traditional man because he did not bring a salary home, scrubbed the dishes, made the food, cleaned the house, knew better than she how to calm the Baby and barely yelling at him. She, on the other hand, had to do everything he did not do: have a paid job, without allowing him to clean his home, make food, or take care of his son, and that had meant a serious problem of living together family.The judge decides that she is right and should stay with the son because he did not behave like a traditional man at any time and urges him to receive psychological therapy to behave based on the customs of the area and thus be able to work, see little to his son and shout a little at his wife, avoiding going through the kitchen to cook or scrub the dishes.
Absurd, true?
