Spain
Barcelona: July 1990-October 30, 1994

In July 1990 regional authorities in Barcelona, Spain, raided a Family community and forcibly apprehended 21 children, one as young as eight months old. They claimed that the children were abused and in need of state care. At the same time, the parents of the children were charged with illegal association, operating an illegal school, inflicting mental damage on their children, and fraud. Although no evidence of any kind of abuse was found, the children were forced to remain against their will in state custody for nearly 12 months.

For the next two years, government agencies, aided by anti-cult groups such as Pro-Juventud and CROAS (Centro di Recuperacion, Orientacion, Y Asistencia Afectados por las Sectas) were unrelenting in their efforts to discredit the Family. An enormous amount of taxpayers' money was spent on pursuing the Family in court. In spite of this, in May 1992 the provincial court ruled that there was no evidence that abuse had occurred and the custody of the children was awarded definitively to their parents. In their ruling, Judges Adolfo Fernandez Oubiña, Jesus I. Perez Burred, and Jose Mã. Bachs Estany strongly questioned the competence and motives of the welfare agencies which had originally apprehended the children. They observed:

They [the children] were put in the hands of a group of psychologists who, in a language the children did not understand [Catalan], psychoanalyzed them twice for a prolonged period and issued reports cast in esoteric language designed rather to justify the operation than to describe any intellectual anomalies, which are completely non-existent.¹

The judges alluded to the government action being reminiscent of the "Spanish Inquisition" and the "concentration camps of those former empires that ceased to be so when human dignity brought down the Berlin Wall." They concluded:

Therefore in light of the fact that nothing unusual was found in any of the children beyond the natural bewilderment of someone who is living in a foreign country and is forcibly separated from their parents despite their tender years and is taught in an unknown language, the supposed judgment of neglect should have been annulled as it is hereby agreed to do and the parents are perfectly free to live with their children in whichever country they consider best and to orient them towards whatever moral, religious, or philosophical convictions they believe to be appropriate.²

The Catalonian Social Services Agency (Direccion General de la Atencion a la Infancia de la Generalidad de Catalunia) appealed this ruling to the Constitutional Court on the grounds that the constitutional rights of the children were being infringed upon, due to the fact that the children were homeschooled and religiously indoctrinated according to the beliefs of their parents. In October 1994 the Constitutional Court found that the article of the Constitution guaranteeing education for minors did not carry an inherent requirement that such education could not be supplied privately by the parents outside of state institutions in accordance with the religious and moral convictions of the parents. As such, all appeals were dismissed.

In a second case involving criminal charges, the parents were acquitted of all charges. In the 42-page verdict that was issued on June 29, 1993, Judges J. O. Conzalvez, G. C. Guilabert, and A. I. Fernandez of the Third Section of the Barcelona Provincial Court stated:

The [Family] community maintains a disciplined communal way of life, distributing the responsibilities [among its members]. There is no proof existing that there is any coercive behavior. In accordance with their moral leading they teach their school-age children through homeschooling, in a manner similar to that of religious boarding schools. Their classes are complemented with readings of the Bible and other texts. The adults in the community show a great love and tenderness [toward the children]. The psychiatric reports are unanimous in vehemently dismissing any mental illness or any kind of psychosis or psychopathy.³

In addition, judges ruled that there was "no proof that fraud or trickery was used in their presentation [to donors of goods]. None of the donors feel that they have been deceived or damaged, thus no complaints were filed whatsoever."⁴

Thus Family members were acquitted of all charges. This ruling was appealed, and on October 30, 1994, the Supreme Court of Spain rejected the appeal and upheld the vindication of members of the Family. In its pronouncement the Supreme Court declared:

We find ourselves in the presence of a community of people who have adopted a lifestyle that differs from the generally accepted norms. Not a single element is found that could allow us to declare the existence of any intention to hurt their children or the other children of the community. They avoid sending their school-aged children to official institutions of learning choosing to teach them themselves using the method that in Anglo-Saxon countries is known as homeschooling. To proclaim the superiority of one education system over another would inevitably lead us to apply value judgments. Judges cannot enter into the sanctuary of personal beliefs, except when external behaviors originating from a particular ideology negatively affect legally protected rights.⁵

* * *

Footnotes:
¹ Judges: Adolfo Fernandez Oubiña, Jesus I. Perez Burred, and Jose Mã. Bachs Estany, Case numbers: 157 to 163/1992, Barcelona, Spain, Ruling on May 21, 1992.

² Ibid.

³ Judges: Miguel Rodriguez-Piñero Bravo-Ferrer, Fernando Garcia-Mon Gonzalez-Regueral, Carlos de la Vega Benayas, Vicente Gimeno Sendra, Rafael de Mendizabal Allende, and Pedro Cruz Villalon, Appeal numbers: 1561 to 1567/1992, Verdict dated October 3, 1994.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Judges: Enrique Ruiz Vadillo, Jose Antonio Martin Pallin, and Justo Carrero Ramos, Appeal number: 3032/93, Verdict number 1669/94, October 30, 1994.