Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Capt. Mitch Mcfrederick Chapin

17429 to grow

few months ago I had how to read a sentence that has stayed with me in mind and which, over time, led me to develop some considerations on a very sensitive topic-relationships between separated spouses When those who themselves have minor children in common, however, I intend to share.
This is the decision No. 27995 of the Court of Cassation on 8 July 2009 which establishes the criminal liability of a parent who was appointed custodian of the child, precludes the maintenance of the terms of its relationship with the other parent .
As the decision in question is certainly commendable, but I wonder whether it can be the maximum legal protection granted to minors or, otherwise, it could and you should do more.
Let me explain.
While the Supreme Court recognized the essentiality of maternal and paternal figure for proper mental and physical development of the child, on the other hand, the criminal responsibility of the custodial parent has been declared in relation to an offense listed in 'Art. 388 cp or for failure to comply with an interlocutory order.
In essence then, against the infringement of a right is extremely important as that of the child to be guaranteed a proper development of personality through the intervention of both parents, the custodial parent has been convicted only for failing to comply with a provision given by the Court.
If this is the picture of the facts I believe that everything is totally inadequate to provide efficient and effective protection of children's rights.
How can you react to the injury of a person's right to use a provision inserted in the context of crimes against the administration of justice and that, moreover, provides for the alternative penalty of imprisonment up to three years (and then you go from a minimum of fifteen days to three years) or a fine of 103.00 to 1032.00 €? What could be the scope of specialpreventiva a rule against the undoubted persistence evident from husband and wife whose only interest is to hurt at any cost his former partner using the manipulation children without any scruples? It can be said
sufficient child protection afforded in civil proceedings Art. 709 b cpp?
At this point, since the establishment of the separation will make this year its first forty years and now it can be stated with sufficient certainty the absolute incidence of the same radical change to society in general and in particular the family I think that if you want to provide full and effective protection of the rights of children of separated parents is a need for reform, however difficult and delicate, can come to the introduction of a specific threat of an offense whose good protected legal interest is established at the same time the correct development of the personality of the child and the protection of the parent figure and whose sentence has fixed the limits prescribed by law able to reflect even the most unruly parents.
not that what I am envisaging is simple but certainly, in my opinion necessary.
On the other hand, if we consider that only thirteen years ago the legislature was able to "transfer" from the sphere of sexual abuse crimes against morality nell'alveo of crimes against the person, I wonder how much longer will need to mature awareness of the need to intervene most effectively on an issue of far-reaching.
Below is the URL, carry the literal text of the Judgement which was even inspired my post.

Supreme Court
Judgement 8 July 2009, No 27995
Done right and
1 - The Court of Agrigento - Canicattì section - with sentence 03/22/2005, LF declared guilty of the offense under Article. 388 cp (to circumvent the decision of the civil courts in order to custody of minor children A., preventing his father, GL, to keep him within the period established) and acquitted of the crime of attempted domestic violence (for attempting to compel the husband, by threatening to not let him see his son, to pay him the monthly allowance established in the separation) because the crime does not exist.
2 - The Court of Appeal of Palermo, hit by liens of the defendant and the PG, with sentence 23/11/2005, reforming part of the decision at first instance, stated that F. also guilty of attempted arbitrary exercise of its reasons (art. 393 cp), thus qualifying the original indictment under Articles. 56-610 cp, unifying the two offenses under the constraint of the continuation, adjusted the penalty, taking into account the already granted extenuating circumstances, in twenty days in jail, replaced with € 760.00 in fines, and confirmed in the rest of the contested decision.
3 - He appealed to the Supreme Court the defendant, alleging a violation of the law penale e il vizio di motivazione: a) quanto al reato di cui all’art. 388 c.p., ha stigmatizzato lo scarso interesse del L. ad intrattenere rapporti significativi col figlio, tanto che quest’ultimo, a lei affidato, non aveva dimostrato alcuna disponibilità ad allontanarsi, nel mese di ( …) dal suo ambiente abituale, sicché la scelta da lei fatta era stata determinata dalla sola ragione di evitare un trauma al bambino; b) quanto al reato di cui agli artt. 56-393 c.p., nessuna prova affidabile era stata acquisita.
Il ricorso non è fondato.
Rileva la Corte, in ordine alla prima doglianza, che l’elusione dell’esecuzione del provvedimento giurisdizionale adottato in sede di separazione dei coniugi is also achieved through non-compliance to the same measure. "Evasion", in fact, means to frustrate, make vain the legitimate claims of others and that through a mere omission, which in this case consisted in the refusal of F., who had custody of the child, to ensure that the same should spend his father pre-holiday period. The alleged exercise of the right and duty to have acted solely in the interests of the child, which would have expressed its unwillingness to move away, albeit temporarily, from his usual environment, has remained unproven. Wrong, however, we ignore that it is the duty of the custodial parent to encourage at least that there are contrary indications of particular gravity, the relationship of the son with the other parent, and this precisely because both parental figures are central and crucial for balanced growth of the child. The barriers to meetings between father and son, to sever all ties between them, can have deleterious effects on the balance of personality and psychological training of the second. It appears that the
F. have moved in the direction that his duty as a mother, regardless of selfish, required it to protect the position of the child, nor is it a situation that made it impractical to rely, albeit temporary, of the child to his father, a situation that However, if real, would be represented promptly to the competent legal authorities for appropriate action.
The second complaint is completely generic and not capable of putting content in crisis, the national court has considered the basic value of the offense under Articles. 56-393 cp, proved by clear and credible testimony of L., recipient of the call blackmail from his wife, who, to induce him to comply with its obligations on time more of an economic nature, had threatened to hinder in any way the meeting between father and son, the fact that it represents - among others - a further confirmation of the validity of the first indictment. The use
must therefore be rejected. Consequently, law, order the appellant to pay the costs. PQM

rejects the appeal and order the applicant to pay the costs


Post a Comment