Report No. 41 (2025) IACHR. Petition No. 2079-17 (Brazil)

• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Year: 2025
• Case Type: Inadmissibility

REPORT No. 41/25

PETITION 2079-17

INADMISSIBILITY REPORT

N.C. & P.C.

BRAZIL

OEA/Ser.L/V/II

Doc. 44

1 April 2025

Original: español

Approved electronically by the Commission on April 1, 2025.

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 41/25, Petition 2079-17. I..

N.C. and P.B.. A.1., 2025.

www.cidh.org

I. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITION

Petitioner:	N.C., Public Defender's Office of the Union (Defensoria Pública da União) (DPU)
Alleged victim:	N.C. and P.C.
Respondent State:	Brazil
Rights invoked:	Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (R. to a Fair Trial), 11 (Right to Privacy), 19 (Rights of the Child), and 24 (Right to Equal Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights1

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR2

Filing of the petition:	November 15, 2017
Additional information received at the stage of initial review:	August 16, 2019
N. of the petition to the State:	J. 7, 2020
Request for Extension:	October 7, 2020
Granting of Extension:	October 14, 2020
S.’s first response:	November 6, 2020
Additional Observations from the Petitioning Party:	December 7, 2020; April 3, 2022; A.5., 2022; February 27, 2024

III. COMPETENCE

Competence Ratione personae:	Yes
Competence Ratione loci:	Yes
Competence Ratione temporis:	Yes
Competence Ratione materiae:	Yes, the American Convention (instrument deposited on September 25, 1992)

IV. DUPLICATION OF PROCEDURES AND INTERNATIONAL RES JUDICATA, COLORABLE CLAIM, EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

Duplication of procedures and International res judicata:	No
Rights declared admissible	None
Exhaustion of domestic remedies or applicability of an exception to the rule:	Yes, on December 1, 2017, as per Section VI
Timeliness of the petition:	Y., partially, as per the terms of Section VI

V. POSITION OF THE PARTIES

The Petitioning Party

1. The petitioning party alleges that the Brazilian State failed to protect the rights of Ms. N.C. and her son, P.C., in the context of legal disputes over the child's custody and allegations of child sexual abuse.

Protective Measures

2. According to the petitioning party, on January 13, 2014, Ms. N.C. reported acts of violence and threats by her then-husband, Mr. T.M., father of the child P.C., to the 78th Police Station in S.P..

3. In the same context, she filed a legal action for an unspecified precautionary measure with the application of protective measures (case number 1017566-51.2014.8.26.0002) before the 3rd Family and Probate Court of Santo Amaro, obtaining a court decision removing Mr. T.M. from the home.

Divorce Action and Provisional Custody

4. According to the petitioning party, also in 2014, Ms. N.C. initiated a divorce action (case number 1016240-56.2014.8.26.0002) before the 3rd Family and Probate Court of Santo Amaro and obtained provisional custody of her son.

Custody and Visitation Rights Action

5. The petitioning party indicates that, in 2014, the father filed a custody and visitation rights action against Ms. N.C. (case number 1035356-48.2014.8.26.0002), requesting shared custody and accusing the mother of parental alienation.

6. The action was processed before the 3rd Family and Probate Court of Santo Amaro. D. the proceedings, N.C. reported to the court that she did not trust leaving her son alone with the father, as there were signs of sexual abuse committed by the father; she requested that the visits be monitored; and she attached an audio recording in which the boy reported games of a sexual nature between him, his father, and a friend of his father during bath time.

7. On J.2., 2015, by court order, a psychological evaluation of P.C. was conducted. The evaluation i) considered that the story about the bath mixed reality and fantasy and understood that the boy saw the scene as a game; ii) questioned Ms. N.C.'s alienating attitudes, stating that she could contaminate the child's memory, in addition to criticizing the child's nanny; iii) indicated that Ms. N.C. presented characteristics compatible with the diagnosis of paranoid personality disorder.

8. On January 11, 2016, Ms. N.C. underwent a psychiatric evaluation by court order. The responsible psychiatrist ruled out the diagnoses of paranoid personality disorder and persistent delusional disorder and concluded that Ms. N.C. suffered from schizotypal disorder.

9. Ms. N.C.'s defense asked the expert if the symptoms presented posed a risk to the child and if she could exercise custody. The doctor replied that, according to the symptoms presented at the time of the psychiatric evaluation, there was no risk and that N.C. was fit for custody.

10. In May 2016, the judge of the 3rd Family and Probate Court of the Regional Forum II of Santo Amaro established shared custody of the child, and the decision became final.

Police Investigation

11. The petitioning party also reports that in July 2016, during the school holidays, P.C. remained under the care of his father for fifteen days. U. returning to his mother, the boy reported that he had been prevented from communicating with her. In this context, Ms. N.C. contacted the Guardianship Council and reported to the 48th Police Station – C.D., S.P., possible acts of sexual abuse and mistreatment committed by the father against the child. In response, the police initiated Police Inquiry 339/2016.

12. On March 21, 2017, the inquiry was closed. The petitioning party alleges that the investigation did not advance in the production of more in-depth evidence, despite Ms. N.C.'s repeated statements about the seriousness of the alleged facts.

Custody Reversal Action

13. On August 19, 2016, the father obtained a court order for the search and seizure of the minor P.C. under an emergency injunction. According to the petitioning party, the measure was carried out on the same date when armed police officers, accompanied by a court officer and two lawyers, removed the child from his mother's house. The court order was associated with the Custody Reversal Action (Case number 1042945-23.2016.8.26.0002) processed at the 4th Family and Probate Court of the Regional Forum II of Santo Amaro.

14. On August 22, 2016, the father filed a petition in the case alleging that the parental alienation committed by Ms. N.C. had not ceased and requesting sole custody of P.C., suspension of maternal contact, and a continued psychological evaluation of Ms. N.C.

15. Ms. N.C. presented her defense alleging that the core of the lawsuit—the possible situation of abuse suffered by the minor—was being disregarded and giving way to repeated questioning about her mental health. In addition, she informed the court that the father, even before the reversal decision, was already seeking to prevent the son's contact with the mother.

16. During the proceedings, Ms. N.C. also requested the revocation of the emergency injunction, a new evaluation, the subpoena of the psychologist responsible for the report in the previous case, and the recusal of the judge in the case. H., the requests were denied. Despite the mother's statements, the judge of the 4th Family and Probate Court of the Regional Forum II of Santo Amaro issued a judgment granting the father's requests and maintaining custody exclusively in his hands, suspending any form of visitation by Ms. N.C. for a period of one year.

17. Ms. N.C. filed an appeal against the judgment. On September 28, 2017, the S.P.C. of Justice (TJSP) partially granted the appeal to establish a regime of supervised maternal visits for a period of three months, lasting three hours per week, subsequently transitioning to bi-weekly visits...