Juana Rivas is currently embroiled in a high-stakes custody dispute involving her son Daniel, who faces the prospect of returning to Italy with his father, sparking serious concerns for his safety. On January 7, the Juzgado de Primera Instancia nº 10 de Granada announced it would not intervene to provide protective measures for Daniel Arcuri Rivas, instead deferring to the Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer nº 2 de Granada.
According to Carlos Aranguez, the lawyer representing Rivas, the presiding magistrate on the case was still on vacation when the decision was made, leading to the case's dismissal. The interim magistrate indicated they could not implement any measures until the case file was properly transferred and reviewed.
This delay is particularly concerning as January 8 looms—when Daniel is due to return to Italy with his father. Rivas's legal team has stressed the urgency of the situation, stating Daniel has expressed "un miedo terrible y temor por su vida si vuelve con él" (a terrible fear and concern for his life if he goes back with him), underscoring the fears he has articulated to family members.
Rivas's attorneys have taken their plight to the Fiscalía Provincial de Granada, requesting immediate intervention due to what they describe as clear risk to Daniel's safety. They are urging protection on the grounds of alleged threats made against Rivas and her children, hoping to invoke international protections.
Despite their efforts, both the courts in Malaga and Granada have rejected Rivas's pleas for protective orders, citing insufficient justification for the measures sought. The lawyer's statements reflect frustration, as they feel justice has yet to address their serious concerns adequately.
The situation draws attention not only to personal safety concerns but also to the intersection of family law and criminal justice involving allegations of domestic violence and intimidation. Rivas has positioned herself as not merely fighting for her own rights but fundamentally for her son’s welfare, claiming her family faces clear peril should they be compelled to return to Italy.
This legal turmoil exposes the broader challenges faced by individuals engaged in custody disputes, particularly when allegations of threats and abuse are present. The courts’ dismissals reflect how legal systems often grapple with the convective waters of family law, needing to balance protective measures with jurisdictional limitations.
Now, Rivas and her legal team are caught at crossroad, contemplating their next move as they attempt to navigate the socio-legal dynamics of custody disputes intertwined with issues of domestic safety. Looking forward, they aim to garner more substantial support from legal entities and advocates specializing in international child protection laws.
The outcome of this case may not only define Daniel’s immediate future but also set potential precedents on how courts handle similar cases where allegations of fear for safety intertwine with custodial rights between parents separated by international borders.
Juana Rivas continues to advocate for her son, emphasizing the urgent need for protective measures amid the legal proceedings wrapping around them, as they hold onto hope for support from the judicial system they find themselves challenging.