Criminal Lawyers in Child-to-Parent Violence

Child-to-Parent Violence: Concept, Criminal Framework and Dual Regime

Child-to-parent violence (CPV) is the form of intra-family violence where the child, descendant or ward exercises repeated physical, psychological or economic aggression against their parents, grandparents or other ascendants with whom they cohabit or depend. Although lacking an autonomous criminal type, it is usually subsumed under habitual abuse of Art. 173.2 CP, abuse of Art. 153 CP, injuries (Arts. 147-148), threats (Arts. 169-171), coercion (Art. 172) and damages (Art. 263, subject to the Art. 268 CP exemption where there is no violence, intimidation or abuse of the victim's vulnerability). The protected interest is the personal and psychological integrity of ascendants and family peace. CPV is a growing problem, which psychology links to the so-called "Emperor Syndrome" described by Garrido Genovés, and trying it requires the court to assess family context, addictions, conduct disorders and possible inversion of parent-child roles.

The legal regime of CPV bifurcates radically according to the aggressor's age. If the child is under 14, Organic Law 5/2000 on Juvenile Criminal Responsibility declares them to lack criminal capacity entirely (inimputable): the response is civil-welfare (social services intervention, administrative protective measures). If the child is between 14 and 17, they respond before the Juvenile Prosecutor with educational-sanctioning measures (supervised liberty, social-educational tasks, cohabitation with educational group, internment in closed, semi-open, open or therapeutic regime). If the child is an adult, they respond before ordinary criminal jurisdiction with effective prison sentences, criminal record and, where appropriate, accessory measures such as prohibition of approach and communication with the victim parents.

The specific penalties are graduated. In adults, habitual abuse under Art. 173.2 CP carries 6 months to 3 years' prison, deprivation of the right to bear arms and special disqualification. Isolated acts of physical violence are punished under Art. 153.2 CP with 3 months to 1 year prison or 31-80 days community service (6 months to 1 year, under Art. 153.1, where the parent is a particularly vulnerable person living with the offender). Injuries are sanctioned under Art. 147.1 CP with 3 months to 3 years' prison or a fine and, in the aggravated cases of Art. 148, with 2 to 5 years' prison. For minors aged 14-17, Organic Law 5/2000 provides for measures of up to 2 years as a general rule (Art. 9.3), of up to 3 or 6 years depending on age where the offence is serious or violent, including closed-regime internment (Art. 10.1), supervised liberty of up to 6 months for minor offences (Art. 9.1), and therapeutic internment to address addictions or disorders (Art. 7.1.d). Precautionary measures include a restraining order from the family home (with relevant practical effects when the aggressor is the child) and, for minors, supervised liberty, living with another person, family or educational group, or precautionary internment (Art. 28 of Organic Law 5/2000).

The technical defence in CPV articulates four differential axes according to procedural role. For the aggressor child: analysis of excluding or mitigating causes (substance use as a full defence under Art. 20.2 CP, an incomplete defence under Art. 21.1 or the mitigating factor of serious addiction under Art. 21.2, mental disorders with psychiatric expert basis, mental abnormalities under Art. 20.1 CP); intra-judicial conciliation strategy in minors —with file dismissal if the minor acknowledges the facts, repairs and commits to treatment— and, in adults, suspension of execution conditional on therapeutic treatment. For victim parents: proof of habituality through clinical diary, prior reports, medical certificates, witness statements; request for urgent precautionary measures; personation as private prosecution to ensure civil reparation and evidentiary relevance. Intra-judicial mediation, although controversial where violence is proven, remains a useful tool in low-intensity cases with genuine willingness to change.

In current forensic practice, CPV proceedings have multiplied in the last decade, especially linked to cannabis, alcohol or new psychoactive substance use, undiagnosed or untreated neurodevelopmental disorders (ADHD, autism spectrum), conflictual separations generating role inversion, and overprotective family dynamics. Organic Law 8/2021 on comprehensive protection of children and adolescents against violence has reinforced the systemic perspective, demanding coordinated protocols between justice, education, health and social services. The judicial response to CPV requires a double sensitivity: effectively protecting victim parents without renouncing the re-educational purpose for the aggressor child. At Alonso Sala, with 15+ years' experience, we advise both parties with an integrated criminal-civil-therapeutic approach, prioritising solutions that preserve the family bond when viable and ensure effective protection when not.

Habitual Abuse and Proof of Habituality

The boundary between habitual abuse under Art. 173.2 CP and isolated acts under Art. 153 CP is decisive in the classification. Art. 173.3 CP defines habituality by reference to the number of proven acts of violence and their temporal proximity, regardless of whether the violence was directed at the same or different victims and of whether such acts have been previously prosecuted or not. A prior conviction is therefore not required: proof of a pattern suffices. The defence aims to undermine that pattern —disconnected episodes, absence of continuity, lack of a climate of domination— to redirect the facts to the criminal response for individual acts, substantially less serious than the habitual-abuse type.

Therapeutic Treatment as the Core Response

In child-to-parent violence, therapeutic treatment is frequently the core of an effective response. In the juvenile jurisdiction, Organic Law 5/2000 provides for therapeutic internment and supervised liberty with psychological monitoring when addictions or conduct disorders concur. In adults, the suspension of execution of the sentence may be conditioned on undergoing deaddiction treatment or training programmes (Art. 83 and, for drug dependence, Art. 80.5 CP). Proving genuine willingness to undergo treatment through clinical reports and the effective start of therapy before trial reinforces both the suspension and, for minors, the possibility of dismissal by conciliation under Art. 19 of Organic Law 5/2000.

Child-to-Parent Conflicts

As a specialist firm, we offer comprehensive assistance ranging from intra-judicial mediation to the handling of precautionary measures and restraining orders, always safeguarding the best interest of the family unit.

Following a report of aggression, the court may impose immediate measures to protect the parents:

• Restraining Order: The child must leave the family home (even if it is their own residence).
• Supervised Liberty (minors only): Periodic monitoring by judicial officers.
• Cohabitation with another person (minors only): An obligation to live with grandparents or other relatives, another family or an educational group (less common).