Terrible

Juana Rivas Case: A Familiar Pattern of Media Spectacle and Legal Battles

The protracted legal and media saga surrounding Juana Rivas, which began in 2017 when she fled with her children to avoid handing them over to their father, has resurfaced with striking similarities. While the immediate threat of kidnapping that led to RivasS partial pardon is absent this time, the pattern of public attention and the involvement of her children remain consistent.

Rivas has once again placed her children at the center of the public eye. Her eldest child, now 18 and living with her, has been a recurring figure during the proceedings for the handover of his younger brother, who is currently 11.This repeated exposure has drawn criticism, with accusations that Rivas’s circle orchestrated the public display of her children’s distress.

During the recent handover process, Rivas’s supporters allegedly coached her younger son to declare, “I don’t want to return to italy, my dad is going to kill me.” This statement, intended to influence the judge, echoed a similar plea made in January. While this tactic did not result in the desired judicial outcome, it succeeded in reigniting widespread public awareness of the case across Spain.

The Juana Rivas support platform has been vocal, chanting slogans such as “A mistreat is not a good father,” aligning with sentiments expressed by minister Sira Rego. Meanwhile, the father, Arcuri, awaits trial for ill-treatment scheduled for september 18, though previous complaints filed by Rivas have been dismissed. Rivas herself was convicted of kidnapping her children, leading to the popular slogan “Juana is in my house.” she received a partial government pardon, conditional on her not committing the same offense again.

During the handover, a psychologist examined the younger child and deemed him not to be in a suitable condition for the transfer. Technicians concluded that the handover should be postponed to prevent further distress to the boy.

A new appointment has been scheduled for Friday. The court has emphasized that the location and time will not be disclosed to protect the child’s privacy and well-being,a stark contrast to the eight years of intense public scrutiny the child has endured.