You are here:

Key facts of the case:

The father of the child complained to the court alleging that the mother of the child had failed to comply with the parental responsibility agreement. In summary, the father of the child claimed that the mother of the child decided to change the child's residence and school without his consent and, on the other hand, that she did not comply with the system of visits to which she was bounded by sentence, and  also that she did not take care of the child's health. The father of the minor has also requested that the Court condemned the mother to a fine. The First Instance Court did not give reason to the child’s father, so the father appealed to a higher Court. This case reflects the decision of this Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal decided the case under the terms of Law 141/2015, of 8 September, which establishes the general rules of the jurisdictional civil process of minors.

Outcome of the case:

The Court clarified that only the illicit and guilty conduct of the mother would be relevant to the conviction. After analysing the facts of the case, the Court concluded that the mother was not guilty. The child's mother did not breach her duties in the context of parental responsibilities and did not offend any of the rights of the child. So, the Court did not give reason to the child’s father, maintaining the Lower Court's decision and did not condemn the mother to the payment of a fine.