Informe Jurídico sobre Casación N° 1736-2020-Lima Norte “Tenencia y Custodia del Menor”

Abstract

El caso trata sobre la disputa de tenencia del menor Pablo Dante Alberto Larico Núñez. La madre, Marylin Núñez, denunció que el padre lo sustrajo violentamente en 2016 y restringió el contacto, alegando además que el entorno paterno era riesgoso por antecedentes de abuso sexual de familiares. El padre sostuvo que la madre le entregó voluntariamente al niño en 2014 y que desde entonces él fue su cuidador principal, presentando pruebas de convivencia estable y entorno seguro. En primera y segunda instancia, se otorgó la tenencia al padre, priorizando la estabilidad del menor. La madre apeló y finalmente interpuso casación alegando vulneración al debido proceso, falta de motivación y desvaloración de pruebas. La Corte Suprema declaró fundada la casación, revocó la sentencia anterior y otorgó la tenencia a la madre. Consideró que no se valoraron adecuadamente los riesgos en el entorno paterno, ni la opinión del menor, quien expresó su preferencia de vivir con su madre. La decisión reafirma la obligación de aplicar correctamente el principio del interés superior del niño, garantizar su seguridad y bienestar, y valorar integralmente las pruebas presentadas por ambas partes.

The case concerns a dispute over custody of the minor Pablo Dante Albert Larico Núñez. The mother, Marylin Núñez, alleged that the father violently kidnapped him in 2016 and restricted his contact with her. She also claimed that the father's environment was unsafe due to a history of sexual abuse by family members. The father insisted that the mother voluntarily handed the child over to him in 2014 and that, since then, he had been the child's primary caregiver, presenting evidence of a stable relationship and a safe environment.

In the first and second instances, custody was granted to the father, prioritizing the child's stability. The mother appealed and ultimately filed an appeal alleging violation of due process, lack of motivation, and devaluation of the evidence.

The Supreme Court found the appeal well-founded, dismissed the previous ruling, and granted custody to the mother. The court found that the risks of the paternal environment and the opinion of the child, who expressed his preference to live with his mother, were not adequately assessed. The decision reaffirms the obligation to properly apply the principle of the child's best interests, guarantee his safety and well-being, and fully assess the evidence presented by both parties.