There have recently emerged various related tutored children, who do not know well how to get pregnant while under the system of child protection, as is the case of Maria Jose Abeng, whom a court has given reason news forcing adoptive parents to return the child with the mother.

The protection system for children and adolescents has been reformed by the Organic Law 8/2015, of July 22 – develops and reinforces the concept of interests of the child and that this is a priority – and the Law 26/2015, of July 28 – which focuses on the administrative action of menores- protection system. They came into force in August 2015.

As the Supreme Court noted, these amendments must serve as hermeneutical canon, being necessary that the administrative and judicial action be geared to the child to remain with his family of origin and the maintenance of family relationships, assessing the possibilities and desirability of his return when he had been separated from their families, taking into account the evolution of the family.

It is common in the dynamics of the administration of juvenile justice system, perform actions conducive breaking subsidiary maternal relationship for the benefit of the figure of the adoption, claiming that these mothers when minors are deprived of parental authority and can not be collect consent to the adoption. However, nothing is further from reality, as substantiated the judgment that gives reason to Ms. Abeng and the judgment of the AP of Asturias of March 10, 2016, for a mother who is a minor and it is supervised by the administration that has declared homelessness, which develops within its means everything in its power to keep your child not be giving your child up for adoption. It is very surprising that when these mothers, or those which have not yet given birth, but has issued an hospital retention of the unborn child and subsequent helplessness, ask for help, take the blame for disruptive behavior in the past and make changes to be part of society, not received by the Administration the means to achieve the skills and attitudes that insistently Administration says they lack.

the administration in paragraph six of Article 19 introduces paragraph 13 of Article 1 of Law 26/2015 of 29 July amending the system of protection of children and adolescents, which makes an explicit reference forget that children and young people subject to protective measures that are pregnant, receive counseling and support appropriate to their situation, having to contemplate on individual protection plan this circumstance and the protection of the newborn.

Still, when one of these mothers judicially oppose the Administration give their children for adoption, often use other functions diametrically opposite argument: the risk of the return of the child to the family of origin.

For the return of helpless minor it is essential that there is a positive development and factually sufficient to restore family life, having to maintain links, must attend in order to fulfill parental responsibilities properly and find that the return does not pose significant risks to the retail, through a technical report, among others. Many mothers meet these parameters, however the Administration refuses to prioritize the interests of the child, using insistently as a cornerstone of their arguments the risk of the child and the inability of the mother to take care of your child for lack of family extensive support. Gentlemen, the reality is different: many children under 3 years in this country, since compulsory schooling is not until age 6, are left to the care of babysitters or blood relatives or affinity, adapting, and under that age have a reality principle that can work up to approach the womb with the skills to be developed by the mother, which confirm many experts in the field … that argument is no longer valid without irrefutable documentary evidence to support it.

Sara Benjelali

Lawyer