Seville, Spain – February 11, 2026 – A judge in Seville has ordered the immediate removal of a six-year-old girl from her mother’s custody and transfer to her father, who was at the time under investigation for alleged sexual abuse and mistreatment of the child, according to reporting by elDiario.es.
The judge’s decision, issued on January 26th, stemmed from the mother’s failure to comply with a court-ordered visitation schedule. However, the mother’s defense has appealed the ruling, arguing it was made although a parallel criminal investigation into the father was ongoing. Medical records, incorporated into the case file, reportedly document injuries to the girl’s neck and genital area, with the child identifying her father as the perpetrator.
Just one week after the judge ordered the custody transfer, a magistrate at Seville’s Investigating Court No. 5 archived the criminal case, concluding there was insufficient evidence to proceed with charges of abuse or sexual assault. The February 2nd ruling, to which elDiario.es had access, relied heavily on a forensic medical report that characterized seven medical evaluations as showing only two instances of minor injuries consistent with manual pressure, and not indicative of intentional violence.
Despite the forensic report, the mother’s defense contends that the absence of visible injuries does not preclude abusive behavior, particularly in young children with difficulty expressing themselves. Citing precedents from the Spanish Supreme Court and Constitutional Court, the defense argues that sexual abuse can occur without leaving physical marks, but can still inflict severe psychological and emotional harm.
The appeal further criticizes the decision not to pursue additional investigative steps, such as a judicial evaluation recommended by the Specialized Evaluation and Diagnosis Program (ADIMA). The defense argues that failing to complete a thorough technical assessment of the case led to a “premature” closure that could hinder the discovery of the truth and jeopardize the child’s protection.
The case highlights what the mother’s defense describes as a “contradiction” – and ultimately a “contamination” – between the family and criminal jurisdictions. The Family Court ordered the transfer of custody on January 26th, seemingly disregarding the ongoing criminal investigation. The defense now argues that the subsequent archiving of the criminal case was “contaminated” by the Family Court’s earlier decision, as it was made without fully investigating the child’s statements and the concerns raised by specialized professionals.
The criminal investigation file includes three emergency room medical reports from May to July 2025, detailing injuries to the girl’s neck, limbs, and genital area. These reports similarly contain the child’s spontaneous statements identifying her father as the cause of the injuries, and include referrals to the court due to suspected abuse. Technical reports from specialists in child care, also included in the file, noted the child’s rejection of her father and recommended a prompt judicial evaluation to prevent further harm.
A 2022 psychosocial report prepared by the Family Court’s team recommended sole custody be granted to the mother, citing difficulties in the father’s parenting abilities, describing him as emotionally unstable and prone to disparaging the mother without considering the child’s needs.
The judge’s decision to archive the criminal case, according to the ruling, was influenced by the context of “clear conflict” between the parents, requiring caution in evaluating the child’s statements. The judge suggested the mother’s actions were motivated by interests beyond the child’s best interests and that the child’s rejection of her father could not be directly linked to proven criminal acts. The court also dismissed further evaluations, citing potential harm to the child, as an ADIMA report indicated she was not prepared to discuss the alleged events.
The mother’s appeal disputes this assessment, arguing the archive was premature and essential investigations were not completed. She denies any attempt to manipulate the criminal process, asserting her actions were driven by her inherent duty to protect her child. The appeal also challenges the forensic report’s assessment and requests a second medical opinion, emphasizing that the absence of external injuries does not rule out sexual abuse, as established by legal precedent. The appeal criticizes the decision to forgo the recommended pre-trial assessment and comprehensive report from ADIMA, arguing it prevents a complete technical evaluation and denies the child enhanced judicial protection.
The criminal case is now pending a decision on the appeal before the Provincial Court of Seville, while the Family Court’s custody order remains in effect. Both decisions are proceeding separately through different jurisdictions. elDiario.es reports that the case remains unresolved.
