The Constitutional protects the non secular freedom of minors in case of disagreement between dad and mom | Society | EUROtoday

The Constitutional has issued a sentence during which he defends the fitting of non secular liberty of a minor earlier than the disagreement of his dad and mom in regards to the coaching he needed to obtain. The ruling unanimously rejects the attraction for amparo formulated by the daddy, during which he questioned the earlier judicial choices for which the battle between the dad and mom in regards to the training that his widespread baby ought to obtain, born in 2016, was resolved, the magistrates have thought-about that the resolutions questioned by the daddy have been “provided”. The ruling additionally emphasizes that they revered the non secular freedom of the daddy and that of the youngest son, in addition to the “best interest” of the latter.

These resolutions, causes the organ of ensures, have been issued “in protection of the minor’s religious identity” and, primarily, consisted of granting the mom “the exclusive exercise of parental rights.” This was supplied with the ability to make the choices that he deemed extra handy on the “religious formation of the child until he is 12 years tablet and, in short, indoctrinate him in the evangelical faith. ”

The father, in flip, got here in demand for amparo to the Constitutional by believing that his personal non secular freedom was unduly restricted. In his useful resource, he stated he was empowered to share and educate his son his non secular religion and his values. He added that the popularity of this proper implied the potential of accompanying the kid to the Church and studying the Bible. All this to know that his proper to spiritual freedom offers him to transmit his beliefs to his kids, even with the opposition of the opposite dad or mum. And burdened in his attraction that the judicial choice “prevented his minor son from receiving religious and moral formation according to his own convictions.”

In software of its personal jurisprudence – sentences 141/2000, of May 29, and 26/2024, of February 14 -, the Constitutional Court recollects in its ruling – from which Justice of the Peace Juan Carlos Campo, of the progressive sector of the Court – that the basic rights invoked by the appellant “are closely related to those of the common son of minor, in reference to their own religious freedom, has been speaking. For this reason, “the adequate resolution of the disagreement between parents cannot fail to take into consideration their content or, in case of conflict, the best interests of the child, as defended in the amparo process by the Fiscal Ministry.”

The Court emphasizes that in the case analyzed the behavior of the parent, which is questioned by its excess, has nothing to do with the choice of school. Therefore, the sentence rules out that the “right for children to receive religious and moral formation that agrees with their own convictions” is affected, since by discovering stated proper “their channel of realization in the educational system through the voluntary selection of the teaching center, its content has not been affected”.

On the opposite hand, the Guarantees Body delimits in its ruling the content material of the alleged non secular freedom of the daddy and the minor son. In this sense, it reminds the appellant that the fitting to profess the beliefs that you really want and act in accordance with them, as acknowledged by the Constitution, “has less intensity when projected on third parties to whom it is about making participants in their convictions, even making proselytism.” The Court considers that in these circumstances “own religious freedom finds its limit in that of third parties that are affected.” This is as a result of “freedom of beliefs finds its most evident limit in that same freedom, in its negative manifestation, that is, in the right of the third party affected not to believe or not support the acts of proselytism of others.”

The Constitutional provides in relation to minors “who are full holders of their fundamental rights”, though as a result of their age and maturity they lack the flexibility to behave to train them. The sentence emphasizes that in these circumstances “the duty of the public authorities to ensure that both the exercise of parental rights, as well as its protection or defense, be done in the interest of the child, which in case of disagreements implies reconciling the training options of each parent seeking a satisfactory balance between the different conceptions they can maintain”.

The sentence states that the target of this doctrine is “to protect and guarantee the potential capacity of the child’s child from self -determination in relation to the religious fact once enough maturity reaches.” In brief, the Constitutional considers that this curiosity might be achieved with “the proportionate judicial decisions” that had been adopted within the earlier choices, whose problem in amparo is dismissed.