Paulina is a psychologist. Some time ago she came to consult us about one of her patients: an 11-year-old boy referred by his school to a specialist and then to therapy with her. He had a diagnosis that required routines, anticipation, consistent limits, and a shared structure between home and school. After almost a year of work, the boy had stabilized. He began to relate better with his classmates, his school difficulties decreased, and his anxiety started to ease. Then his parents separated.
The separation affected him, as it affects many boys and girls. But here something specific was added: when he was with his father, the structure that had allowed his progress disappeared, because routines changed, instructions were not followed, and therapeutic continuity was interrupted. Every time he returned from his dad’s house, the boy became dysregulated, conflicts at school and with peers reappeared, and anxiety grew.
The mother insisted on maintaining certain minimums. Paulina spoke with both parents. The father explained that he could not reproduce that structure in his home, so they proposed realistic alternatives, but there was no flexibility and then what seemed like a coordination difficulty began to take on another dimension, like possible parental neglect.
The mother went to family court and reported a rights violation. The filing was declared inadmissible because the facts were not considered to constitute a serious violation. And that was that, with a suffering boy, a professional who warned of deterioration, and a system that did not support her.
The case exposes a problem we often see, which is that between imperfect parenting and serious violation there is a blurred line. There remain behaviors that, isolated, seem minor, but because of their repetition and the particular needs of a child cause real harm. There is not always physical violence or obvious neglect. Sometimes the harm consists of persistently ignoring a diagnosis, interrupting treatments, or disregarding specialists.
The law does not provide a closed definition, but the Supreme Court has stated that it occurs when the full exercise of a child’s rights is limited without sufficient justification, arbitrarily or disproportionately.
However, a protective measure should not rest on general impressions: it requires identifying which right is threatened, how it was affected, and what intervention could restore it.
Read more Spain: the Ceuta migration crisis corners Pedro Sánchez’s government
It is not about one parent having a “better” routine than the other, but about focusing on the needs of the child and, as in this case, seeing if the repeated neglect of essential therapeutic instructions affects their right to health, education, and comprehensive development.
Law No. 21,430 recognizes children and adolescents as rights holders and obliges the family, the State, and society to protect them. That protection is gradual: there are prevention and support actions, administrative measures — through Local Childhood Offices — and, when greater intervention is required, judicial measures. Not every conflict should end up in court, but the child always has the right to be heard according to their age and maturity.
The problem arises when that system becomes an obstacle course. If the court understands that the facts do not yet constitute a serious violation, the case should find a response through the administrative route. But when that alternative is unknown, unavailable, or fails to get the reluctant adult to join the plan, the child is caught in the middle: too affected for the family to resolve alone, but not enough to obtain judicial protection.
And note that not every parenting difference is neglect. That a child goes to bed later or has different rules in one home does not, by itself, constitute a violation. Co-parenting does not require identical households, but that differences between adults yield when what their son or daughter needs is at stake. That is why, when there are essential therapeutic instructions for a child’s well-being, these should be part of the parenting agreements.
As family lawyers, we believe the system must offer preventive responses before the harm is considered “serious.” Waiting for a child to worsen before intervening contradicts the logic of comprehensive protection. And to those going through a separation we ask something that no law can guarantee, which is that they do not turn their children’s needs into an extension of the couple’s conflict. It is not a war against the ex, nor about proving who parents better. It is about that, even separated, adults still have a shared responsibility with their children.
