Jurisprudence

Jurisprudence Thesis

Ninth era
Record: 185133
Instance: collegiate circuit courts
Source: Judicial Weekly of the Federation and its Gazette
Volume: XVII, January 2003
Subject: civil
Thesis: I.3 °. C.381.C
Page: 1816

Minors. Their change of address CANNOT be determined unilaterally by the Custodial parent IF BOTH PARENTS KEEP THE Patria Potestad
.
Of consistent interpretation of Articles 164, 168, 413, 414, 416, 418 and 422 of the Civil Code for the Federal District, it comes that parental authority is equally exercised by both parents over the person and property of children, and in case of separation of the parents, both must continue carrying on their duties, leaving the child in the care and attention of one of them (the custodian), while the other will be required to contribute to the child in custody who all duties, retaining their rights of living and surveillance, if not deprived of parental authority. Therefore, the parent who retains custody of the child can not unilaterally change the address of the child, since the ownership of these rights does not imply exclusive and absolute power to determine where the child should live, because, being that an extremely important decision to intervene is also the other parent as being in full exercise of parental authority retains the right to coexist and visit his son, and even the obligation to ensure the physical, spiritual and moral of it, as well as attending preparation for an activity to present utility, which could not be conducted if the child is moved to a distant place without his consent or without previous agreement for interaction and visits between the two, so it is indisputable that both parents must be resolved by mutual agreement this change, and in default of agreement, must be the judge who determines everything leading to the formation and education of children, nothing with regard to place and environment in which to function, as it is not possible without adequate justification to distance children from their parents because of changing the domicile of the child within or outside the country, it is clear that the parent not having custody of the child may not enjoy visiting and/or coexisting with his child in the way they had been doing, since it is not the same within the same city even have to leave the country to achieve this coexistence, resulting in apparent harms not only the parent but even for the child, since it does not encourage the same intensity and frequency bonding between them, hence it is meaningful to assess the appropriateness of the child changes his residence, or where appropriate, determine the conditions under which it must take place that change under this obligation is a matter in the exercise of parental authority and peers of the validity of rights of access and contact with the child.
THIRD CIVIL COURT ON THE FIRST CIRCUIT
123/2002 live under 6. Octavio Padilla Longoria. May 22, 2002.Unanimous vote. Speaker: Armando Cortez Galván. Secretary: Regis Gabriel Lopez.