Judge accused of dismissing evidence in child abuse case

Quintana Roo — In a press conference, members of the collectives “Xtabay” and “Frente Feminista Quintana Roo,” with the remote participation of Giorgia, mother of a child victim of sexual abuse, demanded the implementation of protection measures for her and her son, a three-year-old minor, and called for a peaceful mobilization today at 8:50 a.m. at the facilities of the Fourth Federal District Court, where a hearing related to the case will be held.

Collectives of searching mothers and feminist organizations in Quintana Roo publicly denounced the actions of the Control Judge of the Accusatory Penal System, Fernando “N,” whom they accuse of dismissing probative data, expert reports, and the testimony of the minor when ruling, in an initial determination, not to link the alleged aggressor to the process in a case of child sexual abuse that occurred in Playa del Carmen.

The groups indicated that the person identified as responsible, identified as Carlos Anastasio “N,” the biological father of the minor, was subsequently linked to the process by a Second Instance Tribunal, which also imposed preventive detention as a precautionary measure. However, they said the accused did not appear to comply with the court order and currently remains a fugitive, while the mother and child remain under guard for security reasons.

Lawyer Lizbeth Song Anguas stated that the organizations documented during 2025 more than 50 cases of alleged deficient judicial action in processes related to sexual abuse against minors and family violence, which, she warned, evidences a pattern of rulings that “weaken the effective protection of childhood and favor impunity.”

In the meeting with media, the representatives emphasized that child sexual abuse is a crime of a hidden nature, which generally occurs without witnesses and within circles of trust, so the absence of evident physical injuries does not rule out the existence of the crime.

In this case file, they detailed, the child presented behavioral and emotional alterations that were recorded by educational authorities and specialized personnel, and that are part of the case as clinical indicators of harm.

“This conference does not seek to debate legal technicalities, but to explain why it is essential that authorities act with a childhood perspective, heed the opinion of experts, and prioritize the safety of the victims,” expressed spokeswomen from both collectives.

They warned that the lack of execution of the preventive detention ordered by the tribunal places the mother and the minor in a situation of risk. They sent an exhortation to state and federal authorities to prevent legal resources or procedural decisions from facilitating the evasion of justice.

The case, they concluded, places at the center of the discussion the responsibility of the judicial system in protecting the best interests of children, as well as the need to judge with a specialized focus on crimes that, by their nature, rarely have direct visible evidence, but do have expert evidence and technical testimonies that must be evaluated with strict rigor.