Following the meetings held on 22 and 23 March, the AGREEMENT ON URGENT FAMILY LAW ACTIONS BY THE SANTANDER COURTS is adopted.
As a general criterion for interpreting the measures set out in Royal Decree 463/20 of 14 March and its amendment by Royal Decree 465/20 of 17 March, the judges agree that parents must, in all cases, observe the instructions issued by the governmental and health authorities, understanding that the restriction of freedom of movement does not prevent the transfer or movement of minors to attend to their needs of assistance and care in the literal sense, that is, as the act of providing aid, help or support, and this in the face of sudden situations of lack of protection or care.
Consequently, the admission for processing of the precautionary measures for the protection of minors or incapacitated persons provided for in Article 158 of the Civil Code will be subject to the existence of a situation of pressing urgency or clear danger to the child, which must be evidenced, and provided that failing to adopt the measure causes irreparable harm and is urgent and cannot be postponed.
None of the measures approved with the declaration of the state of alarm entails the suspension of the obligations contained in family court rulings, so nothing prevents compliance with the custody and visitation arrangements on the basis that movement is permitted for the assistance and care of minors. Nevertheless, the principle of the best interests of the child must prevail and, to that end, in the face of the declared state of alarm, the specific circumstances of each family must be taken into account. For this reason, it would be advisable to consider whether the custody and visitation arrangements can be carried out under appropriate conditions, that is, avoiding unnecessary risks to the minors and other family members and ensuring compliance with the health measures established by the authorities.
It is clear that this highly exceptional situation calls for an effort of interpretation and adaptation by both parents so that, with common sense, they can comply with both the ruling and the health measures. Nothing therefore prevents both parents from adopting other alternatives between them, such as combining the visitation time of the whole week into one or more specific days, or replacing visits with video calls via WhatsApp, etc., or suspending all midweek visits as a preventive measure, etc.; that is, any agreement adopted in the child’s best interests would be valid. For this reason, the judges have agreed that the enforcement proceedings of the aforementioned rulings will be processed once the declaration of the state of alarm has been lifted, assessing each situation of breach individually in accordance with the above principles. They likewise consider it necessary that the custodial parent facilitate and encourage contact between the children and the other parent, particularly by electronic means, without prejudice to compensating the visitation and stay rights of the non-custodial parent once the state of alarm ends.