Any of the parents who have mistreated a pet or has threatened to do so as a method of coercion to their ex-pairs will not be able to have the shared custody of the children.
This has been approved by Congress on Tuesday within a triple legal reform on animals by which they will stop having the legal status of ‘things’ and will become considered “living beings gifted with sensitivity”. Now these modifications will go to the Senate. This is a legal change that will promote that in divorce processes a judge can determine the shared custody of the dog or the cat of the family between the two people of the former partner. It is an increasingly frequent problem today in separations. Likewise, animals will not be considered as real estate in the processes of embargo or eviction, so they may not be held or separated from their owners. To achieve this legal change regarding the consideration of animals as sentient beings, the Justice Commission , with full legislative competence, has approved the modification of the Civil Code, the Mortgage Law and the Law on Criminal Procedure. It has been 22 votes in favor and 14 against, those of PP and VOX.In their processing has been approved an amendment to the PNV that alludes to the abuse of the pet as a cause for judges to deny the shared custody of children in a separation. “The joint guardian” of the children in a divorce will not proceed when appreciated “the existence of ill-treatment to animals, or the threat of causing them, as a means to control or victimize any of these people,” be the children or the other Member of the couple. This involves transferring it as a case of possible Violence Vicaria, by which the animal is harmed as a method of coercion or intimidation to a person. “Numerous studies show that animals abuse, and the threat of mistreatment, especially the of company, they are part of a coercive system, and that this type of aggression is used by aggressors as a tactic to intimidate, control and suffer minors and people in vulnerability, especially in the family context, “justifies PNV.Y It continues in its explanation: “Animal abuse and the threat of mistreating animals is also a tool to ensure the silence of human victims about other abuses suffering or who have witnessed, or even to make victims flee.”
Regarding the Fund of the Law, it was to be collected in the legislation that animals are “living beings gifted with sensitivity” and, consequently, that their legal treatment will be placed in very relevant aspects in a plane similar to that of people. In this sense, the objective is that the rights of possession on animals are always exercised according to their well-being and protection. It is introduced into the legal regulations applicable in crises and matrimonial ruptures precepts to “specify the custody regime of the pet animals “So, in case of dispute, courts have clear criteria to make the decision of who to deliver the care of the animal according to their well-being. The judge may trust the care of pet animals to one or Both spouses determined, where appropriate, the way in which the spouse who has not been entrusted with daily care may have them in their company. In short, he will be able to establish a regime of visits or a period of stay. On the other hand, it will be absolutely forbidden to seize the animals of company “in attention to the special link of affection that you link them with the family with which they coexist.”
The PP has accused the PSOE of breaking the consensus prior to the legal regime of animals and has considered that the changes introduced by the Socialist Group in the amendment phase, “also regarding the limitations to the granting of the
Save jointly to the parents “, have converted the text into” an ideological instrument instead of in a useful, simple and clear tool to establish measures that guarantee the welfare of the animals. “For that, the deputy Teresa Angulo has urged the PSOE A
Revert certain changes in the Senate to recover the “consensus” that was reached in 2017 with a PP law.
The PP urges the PSOE to reverse the modifications driven by the socialists via amendments “because, far from achieving a peaceful reform, the possibility of the agreement falling into the hyperbole, the lack of technical and legal rigor and introducing more difficulties to
The already difficult situation of a family break. ”