Custody Battles Used as Political Tools

In today’s media landscape, not all cases receive a fair investigation. Some cases that destroy lives go unnoticed or are manipulated to fit a political agenda. Around Mother’s Day, a case surfaced that quickly caught the media’s attention: a woman who has long publicly claimed that the father of her children took them abroad without her consent. What seemed like a straightforward parental kidnapping story became an emotionally charged and politically charged issue.

This case was promoted by public figures and organizations known for their clear ideological bias on human rights and family justice issues. Among those who amplified this story were Yovera, Clara Elvira Ospina, Natalia Manso—who also paid tribute to former Uruguayan president José Mujica, known for his progressive positions—Karla Gaviño, and the National Coordinator for Human Rights. All of these voices, active defenders of left-leaning causes and human rights in the region, spread the story without questioning the evidence or providing a balanced analysis.

However, when reviewing legal documents, ignored testimonies, and psychiatric evaluations omitted by the media, a different picture emerges. What has been portrayed as a case of parental kidnapping is actually a custody dispute involving emotional and legal manipulations from both parties. While the mother has been portrayed as a victim, there are allegations and evaluations against her that the media have overlooked.

The judicial process has been skewed by a media campaign that prioritized the mother’s narrative, ignoring the fundamental principle of the justice system: the best interest of the child. Furthermore, the pressure exerted by activists and media aligned with certain political interests has turned a complex family matter into a political weapon aimed at controlling public opinion and delegitimizing the father’s role.

This situation clearly illustrates how justice can be politicized when the press and social groups prioritize political agendas over the truth. Manipulating these cases affects not only the parents involved but, most importantly, the children—who should always be the focus of any legal and social decision.

Over the coming days, documents, testimonies, and analyses will be shared to show the other side of this story. This is not about taking sides but about presenting evidence so the public can understand that behind what appears to be a simple case, there is often much more: manipulation, personal interests, and a media battle that jeopardizes the well-being of the children involved.

Ultimately, this case highlights the urgent need for media, organizations, and society to respect due process and truth before passing judgment. In a nation proud of justice and family values, ideology must not corrupt the system nor trample on the rights of parents for political gain.