Right of custody. Deception for abuse and harm to the interests of the child

In Marrakech, a divorced mother was deprived of her custody because “the father was prevented from exercising her right to visit”. This was presumed on the basis of its decision by the first instance court of the city of Gerua on Monday, May 16th Section 184 Family code.

It provides that “the court will take all measures deemed appropriate, including changes to the inspection body, as well as Custody loss Default event or Deceptive tactics The decision to implement the agreement or arrange a visit. “

Contacted by Médias24, Rabia Nasiri, a female activist, believes that “the law does not recognize that a parent has any right over her child. The father is the legal guardian of the child. This situation creates huge problems for the mother and, above all, deprives the child of some of his rights in case of conflict between the parents – which often happens (school registration, hospitalization, travel, etc.). ” Especially since “during the divorce process the child’s rights are not considered by law, which can last for several months”.

“Other problems may arise from the effective implementation of court decisions. In this case, for example, regulations and Strict respect for father’s philosophical rights (Respect by both parents), as well as the amount and payment of child support by the father. These issues are a The real challenge For the national justice system “, added Rabia Nachiri.

“It simply came to our notice then Abuse And The solution Who can be The incident of father like mother. For example, some parents petitioned the court to forfeit custody of the child for non-payment of arrears. Among the inviting reasons are the immorality of the guardian mother, the failure of the mother to take care of her children or the exercise of the right of philosophy. For their part, some mothers use it as a right to visit A Armed In their conflict with the father. In this area, what should predominate The interests of the child are paramount. “Rabea saves Nachiri.

Non-compliance with the inspection schedule is one of the reasons for confiscation of custody

In this most recent case, the court considered the fact that the mother traveled with her children during the holiday dedicated to the father, as a “fraudulent tactic”. However, the mother claimed that the complainant had waited more than a week to appear with her children, in vain.

In fact, as part of their divorce in 2017, the mother agreed to be in custody Children aged 8 and 12 years. When giving the father the right to collect them every Sunday, the second day of the religious holiday and every second half of the school holiday.

The plaintiff claims that he went to his ex-wife’s house with a bailiff on August 12, 13 and 14, 2020, thus making it impossible to see the absence of the mother and her children. She then began legal proceedings in October 2020 to request the forfeiture of the mother’s custody so that it could be granted exclusively to her.

For her part, the mother claims that the father waited to pick up her children before deciding to go on vacation with them in the North. According to him, “2019-2020 school year end holidays start from 3rd July according to their school school calendar and end on 1st September. So the second half of the holiday starts on August 1 and not in mid-August. “

In her response, the mother’s defense emphasizes that her absence from home does not constitute a “denial” of the right to visit her father, since “This is the complainant who did not respect the agreed dates”. However, the family court said. His visit constitutes a “fraudulent strategy” Arranges visits to implement the agreement, which explains “His inability to educate” Her children and Thus confiscated justice Right of custody.

Ability to raise a child, condition of transfer of custody

Yet the mother portrayed a man’s profile Violent Towards her and a father Ineligible Providing children with education and living conditions that are in their best interests. He introduced her as the owner of a nightclub and a restaurant where alcohol was allowed. Forces the complainant to be constantly present in his premises. Otherwise, he could risk legal sanctions, as has already happened to him in 2012 and 2015.

Her presence at work is mandatory, and considering her schedule, the mother considers that “the nature of her work and the judgments pronounced against her confirm thatHe does not meet the conditions for transfer of custody in Article 173 Of the family code, viz The ability to raise a child In custody, ofEnsure his safety And his Protection On the plan Religious, Physical And Moral And Take care of her education “.

However, the mother claims to be forced to resort Applicable system for receiving allowances Because of the kids, knowing that their father “refused to go to their school” despite an invitation from their school, which also sent him Caution For Pay tuition fees At the risk of dropping them. Which proves, according to the motherHe is unable to ensure their education. Especially since he Remarried To an “irresponsible” person who has “already been convicted of a crime.”

It should be remembered The marriage of a divorced father is not a reason to forfeit custodyUnlike That mother loses this right in case of remarriage. This is one of the points Discriminatory The Family Code, which is currently in force, is what women’s rights activists are trying to change as part of a major overhaul of Moudawana.

Read on EAlso:

Advocacy of the UAF for the comprehensive reform of Moudawana

Leave a Comment